• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Introduction
 Objectives
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 I.1. Age group of visitors to Kings...
 I.2. Income levels of visitors...
 I.3. Proportion of males to females...
 I.4. Racial composition of people...
 I.5. What was the highest grade...
 I.6. Profile of visitoris to Kings...
 I.7. Profile of Florida visitoris...
 I.8. Primary activities
 I.9. Secondary activities
 I.10. Are you a certified...
 I.11. How many years have you been...
 I.12. How many days do you spend...
 I.13. Are you trained in snork...
 I.14. How many years have you been...
 I.15. How many days per year do...
 I.16. How many times have you visited...
 I.17. How many days are you planning...
 I.18. Composition of parties
 I.19. How many people are in your...
 I.20. Frequency of boat rental...
 I.21. Are you using a launching...
 I.22. If you are using a ramp,...
 I.23. Cost of trip per person
 II.1. The primary purpose of the...
 II.2. Prior to this survey, were...
 II.3. Do you know what level of...
 II.4. Were you informted of manatee...
 II.5. A boat that is producing...
 II.6. How frequently have you seen...
 II.7. Entry by any boat or person...
 II.8. Touching a manatee which...
 II.9. Manatee sanctuaties are important...
 II.10. Touching a manatee which...
 II.11. Touching a manatee which...
 II.12. How frequently have you...
 II.13. If you have seen manatee...
 II.14. How frequently have you...
 II.15. How frequently have you...
 III.1. In your opinion, is the...
 III.2. Are manatees attracted to...
 III.3. In your opinion, do manatees...
 IV.1. Are speed zones adequately...
 IV.2. Do you feel the speed zones...
 IV.3. In your opinion are the speed...
 IV.4. Should the $50 fine for violating...
 IV.5. Should the fine for violating...
 IV.6. Do you feel the $50 fine...
 IV.7. Do you think night diving...
 IV.8. Do you think using a flash...
 IV.9. Do you think using SCUBA...
 IV.10. Do you think using people...
 IV.11. Do you think approaching...
 IV.12. Do you think allowing human...
 IV.13. Would you support a fee...
 IV.14. Would you support a fee...
 IV.15. Would you support a fee...
 IV.16. How important is public...
 IV.17. How important is law enforcement...
 IV.18. How important is manatees...
 IV.19. How important are printed...
 IV.20. How important is improved...
 IV.21. Is the manatee worth saving...
 IV.22. Which methods would you...
 IV.23. Were you informed of manatee...
 IV.24. Were you informed of manatee...
 IV.25. Were you informed of manatee...
 IV.26. Were you informed of manatee...
 IV.27. Were you informed of manatee...
 IV.28. Were you informed of manatee...
 IV.29. Were you informed of manatee...
 IV.30. How should you have been...
 IV.31. How should you feel you...
 IV.32. How should you feel you...
 IV.33. Would you favor strong regulations...
 IV.34. Would you favor strong regulations...
 IV.35. Would you favor restricted...
 IV.36. Would you favor restricted...
 IV.37. Should the government procure...
 IV.38. Would you favor government...
 IV.39. Have you used and inland...
 Index






Group Title: Technical report - Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit - no. 37
Title: Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge public use survey report
CITATION PDF VIEWER PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00073755/00001
 Material Information
Title: Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge public use survey report
Series Title: Technical report
Physical Description: 1 v. (various pagings) : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Buckingham, Cheryl A
Save the Manatee Club (Maitland, Fla.)
Publisher: Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville FL
Publication Date: 1989]
 Subjects
Subject: Recreational surveys -- Florida -- Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge   ( lcsh )
Manatees -- Florida -- Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge   ( lcsh )
Wildlife conservation -- Florida -- Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge   ( lcsh )
Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge (Fla.)   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: Cheryl Buckingham.
General Note: "September 6, 1989."
General Note: Title from cover.
General Note: "Funded by: Save the Manatee Club, 500 N. Maitland Ave., Suite 210, Maitland, FL 32751 through: Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit ..."
General Note: Includes index.
Funding: This collection includes items related to Florida’s environments, ecosystems, and species. It includes the subcollections of Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit project documents, the Sea Grant technical series, the Florida Geological Survey series, the Coastal Engineering Department series, the Howard T. Odum Center for Wetland technical reports, and other entities devoted to the study and preservation of Florida's natural resources.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00073755
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: aleph - 001894741
oclc - 30009758
notis - AJX0006

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title page
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Objectives
        Page 1
    Methods
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Results
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Discussion
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
    I.1. Age group of visitors to Kings Bay, Crystal River, Florida
        Page 21
    I.2. Income levels of visitors to Kings Bay, Crystal River, Florida
        Page 22
    I.3. Proportion of males to females interviews at Kings Bay, Crystal River, Florida
        Page 23
    I.4. Racial composition of people interviewed at Kings Bay, Crystal River, Florida
        Page 24
    I.5. What was the highest grade or year of school you completed
        Page 25
    I.6. Profile of visitoris to Kings Bay by state of residence
        Page 26
    I.7. Profile of Florida visitoris to Kings Bay, Crystal River by county of residence
        Page 27
    I.8. Primary activities
        Page 28
    I.9. Secondary activities
        Page 29
    I.10. Are you a certified diver?
        Page 30
    I.11. How many years have you been diving?
        Page 31
    I.12. How many days do you spend diving in a typical year?
        Page 32
    I.13. Are you trained in snorkeling?
        Page 33
    I.14. How many years have you been snorkeling?
        Page 34
    I.15. How many days per year do you snorkel?
        Page 35
    I.16. How many times have you visited Crystal River in the past?
        Page 36
    I.17. How many days are you planning to stay in the Crystal River area?
        Page 37
    I.18. Composition of parties
        Page 38
    I.19. How many people are in your party?
        Page 39
    I.20. Frequency of boat rentals
        Page 40
    I.21. Are you using a launching ramp today?
        Page 41
    I.22. If you are using a ramp, is the ramp public or private?
        Page 42
    I.23. Cost of trip per person
        Page 43
    II.1. The primary purpose of the refuge is to protect the manatee
        Page 44
    II.2. Prior to this survey, were you aware of the Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge?
        Page 45
    II.3. Do you know what level of government operates the Crystal River Refuge?
        Page 46
    II.4. Were you informted of manatee protection regulations?
        Page 47
    II.5. A boat that is producing minimum wake is going idle speed
        Page 48
    II.6. How frequently have you seen speed zone violations?
        Page 49
    II.7. Entry by any boat or person into a manatee sanctuary is prohibited
        Page 50
    II.8. Touching a manatee which does not first approach you is considered harassment
        Page 51
    II.9. Manatee sanctuaties are important for protecting the manatee
        Page 52
    II.10. Touching a manatee which has not first approached you is harassment
        Page 53
    II.11. Touching a manatee which does not first approach you is considered harassment
        Page 54
    II.12. How frequently have you seen incidents of manatee harassment?
        Page 55
    II.13. If you have seen manatee harassment, what have you seen people doing?
        Page 56
    II.14. How frequently have you seen manatee harassment? (by activity)
        Page 57
    II.15. How frequently have you seen incidents of manatee harassment?
        Page 58
    III.1. In your opinion, is the manatee an endangered marine mammal?
        Page 59
    III.2. Are manatees attracted to the warm water springs in Kings Bay, year-round?
        Page 60
    III.3. In your opinion, do manatees feed only on plants?
        Page 61
    IV.1. Are speed zones adequately signed?
        Page 62
    IV.2. Do you feel the speed zones are adequately signed? (by activity)
        Page 63
    IV.3. In your opinion are the speed zones are adequately signed?
        Page 64
    IV.4. Should the $50 fine for violating manatee laws be increased?
        Page 65
    IV.5. Should the fine for violating manatee laws be increased?
        Page 66
    IV.6. Do you feel the $50 fine for violating manatee laws be increased?
        Page 67
    IV.7. Do you think night diving in the main springs disturbs manatees?
        Page 68
    IV.8. Do you think using a flash with an underwater camera disturbs manatees?
        Page 69
    IV.9. Do you think using SCUBA equipment disturbs manatees?
        Page 70
    IV.10. Do you think using people swimming or diving in large groups disturbs manatees?
        Page 71
    IV.11. Do you think approaching within 50' of a manatee with a motorboat disturbs it?
        Page 72
    IV.12. Do you think allowing human access in all daylight hours disturbs manatees?
        Page 73
    IV.13. Would you support a fee if funds went to saving the manatee and other wildlife?
        Page 74
    IV.14. Would you support a fee if funds went to wildlife?
        Page 75
    IV.15. Would you support a fee if funds went towards saving wildlife?
        Page 76
    IV.16. How important is public education to the protection of the manatees?
        Page 77
    IV.17. How important is law enforcement to the protection of the manatees?
        Page 78
    IV.18. How important is manatees research to the protection of the manatees?
        Page 79
    IV.19. How important are printed regulations to the protection of the manatees?
        Page 80
    IV.20. How important is improved signing to the protection of the manatees?
        Page 81
    IV.21. Is the manatee worth saving despite the need for current restrictions?
        Page 82
    IV.22. Which methods would you most favor to prevent harassment of manatees?
        Page 83
    IV.23. Were you informed of manatee protection regulations?
        Page 84
    IV.24. Were you informed of manatee protection regulations?
        Page 85
    IV.25. Were you informed of manatee protection regulations?
        Page 86
    IV.26. Were you informed of manatee protection regulations? (by residency)
        Page 87
    IV.27. Were you informed of manatee protection regulations?
        Page 88
    IV.28. Were you informed of manatee protection regulations? (by activity)
        Page 89
    IV.29. Were you informed of manatee protection regulations? (by residence)
        Page 90
    IV.30. How should you have been informed of manatee protection regulations?
        Page 91
    IV.31. How should you feel you have been informed of manatee protection regulations? (by activity)
        Page 92
    IV.32. How should you feel you have been informed of manatee protection regulations? (by residence)
        Page 93
    IV.33. Would you favor strong regulations to prohibit development of shoreline?
        Page 94
    IV.34. Would you favor strong regulations to prohibit development of shoreline?
        Page 95
    IV.35. Would you favor restricted development which protects the environment?
        Page 96
    IV.36. Would you favor restricted development which protects the environment?
        Page 97
    IV.37. Should the government procure wetlands and other environmentally important areas?
        Page 98
    IV.38. Would you favor government procurement of environmentally important areas?
        Page 99
    IV.39. Have you used and inland waterway between the Crystal R. and Homosassa R.?
        Page 100
    Index
        Page 101
        Page 102
Full Text


















TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 37


CRYSTAL RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
PUBLIC USE SURVEY REPORT

Cheryl Buckingham





Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge
7798 S. Suncoast Blvd.
Homosassa, FL 32646



Funded by:


Save The Manatee Club
500 N. Maitland Ave.
Suite 210
Maitland, FL 32751


Through:

Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
117 Newins-Ziegler Hall
School of Forest Resources and Conservation
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611


September 6. 1989













INTRODUCTION

In creating a management plan that includes both the needs of the manatee and the desires
of the public, the Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge must necessarily gather together a great deal
of information. This project was intended to find out more about the people who use Kings Bay, to
discover what they know about the manatee and to discover how well they understand the
protection measures as they exist today.



OBJECTIVES


1. To acquire relevant public use information. This information is needed to make
management decisions in Kings Bay, Crystal River that will protect the endangered
West Indian Manatee and also allow for appropriate public use.

2. To acquire information on the extent of public support for other current environmental
issues and proposals affecting the manatees and people of the Kings Bay/Crystal
River area.

3. To meet task assignment 2.1.1 of the Manatee Advisory Committee of Citrus County
which requested the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to survey visitors to Kings Bay.

4. To enhance local public awareness of the manatee through the use of volunteers.

5. To encourage more public awareness and participation in environmental issues.



METHODS

In early fall of 1988, Project Leader Patrick Hagan of the Crystal River National Wildlife
Refuge conceived of this survey as a means of providing much-needed information on public use in
Kings Bay. This information was necessary in order to make effective management decisions on
how best to protect the manatee without creating undue economic impacts on the local community.
Kings Bay is heavily used by the public for recreational purposes (the Refuge estimates between 40-
60,000 visits a year) and several local businesses rely mainly on tourism. The revitalization of the
'Manatee Watch' volunteer program, which in past years has involved local citizens in an informal
crowd control/information dissemination capacity, made the project possible.

The questionnaire was designed specifically: 1) to answer questions concerning the types
of waterbore activities in the Kings Bay/Crystal River area and the people who participate in them;
2) to test the public's knowledge and understanding of manatees and the programs designed to
manage and protect them; and 3) to determine how the public feels about the manatee, about the
public information system as it exists today and about the Refuge's rules and regulations as they
are presently enforced.













INTRODUCTION

In creating a management plan that includes both the needs of the manatee and the desires
of the public, the Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge must necessarily gather together a great deal
of information. This project was intended to find out more about the people who use Kings Bay, to
discover what they know about the manatee and to discover how well they understand the
protection measures as they exist today.



OBJECTIVES


1. To acquire relevant public use information. This information is needed to make
management decisions in Kings Bay, Crystal River that will protect the endangered
West Indian Manatee and also allow for appropriate public use.

2. To acquire information on the extent of public support for other current environmental
issues and proposals affecting the manatees and people of the Kings Bay/Crystal
River area.

3. To meet task assignment 2.1.1 of the Manatee Advisory Committee of Citrus County
which requested the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to survey visitors to Kings Bay.

4. To enhance local public awareness of the manatee through the use of volunteers.

5. To encourage more public awareness and participation in environmental issues.



METHODS

In early fall of 1988, Project Leader Patrick Hagan of the Crystal River National Wildlife
Refuge conceived of this survey as a means of providing much-needed information on public use in
Kings Bay. This information was necessary in order to make effective management decisions on
how best to protect the manatee without creating undue economic impacts on the local community.
Kings Bay is heavily used by the public for recreational purposes (the Refuge estimates between 40-
60,000 visits a year) and several local businesses rely mainly on tourism. The revitalization of the
'Manatee Watch' volunteer program, which in past years has involved local citizens in an informal
crowd control/information dissemination capacity, made the project possible.

The questionnaire was designed specifically: 1) to answer questions concerning the types
of waterbore activities in the Kings Bay/Crystal River area and the people who participate in them;
2) to test the public's knowledge and understanding of manatees and the programs designed to
manage and protect them; and 3) to determine how the public feels about the manatee, about the
public information system as it exists today and about the Refuge's rules and regulations as they
are presently enforced.













INTRODUCTION

In creating a management plan that includes both the needs of the manatee and the desires
of the public, the Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge must necessarily gather together a great deal
of information. This project was intended to find out more about the people who use Kings Bay, to
discover what they know about the manatee and to discover how well they understand the
protection measures as they exist today.



OBJECTIVES


1. To acquire relevant public use information. This information is needed to make
management decisions in Kings Bay, Crystal River that will protect the endangered
West Indian Manatee and also allow for appropriate public use.

2. To acquire information on the extent of public support for other current environmental
issues and proposals affecting the manatees and people of the Kings Bay/Crystal
River area.

3. To meet task assignment 2.1.1 of the Manatee Advisory Committee of Citrus County
which requested the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to survey visitors to Kings Bay.

4. To enhance local public awareness of the manatee through the use of volunteers.

5. To encourage more public awareness and participation in environmental issues.



METHODS

In early fall of 1988, Project Leader Patrick Hagan of the Crystal River National Wildlife
Refuge conceived of this survey as a means of providing much-needed information on public use in
Kings Bay. This information was necessary in order to make effective management decisions on
how best to protect the manatee without creating undue economic impacts on the local community.
Kings Bay is heavily used by the public for recreational purposes (the Refuge estimates between 40-
60,000 visits a year) and several local businesses rely mainly on tourism. The revitalization of the
'Manatee Watch' volunteer program, which in past years has involved local citizens in an informal
crowd control/information dissemination capacity, made the project possible.

The questionnaire was designed specifically: 1) to answer questions concerning the types
of waterbore activities in the Kings Bay/Crystal River area and the people who participate in them;
2) to test the public's knowledge and understanding of manatees and the programs designed to
manage and protect them; and 3) to determine how the public feels about the manatee, about the
public information system as it exists today and about the Refuge's rules and regulations as they
are presently enforced.









The initial questionnaire was developed by the Refuge staff. Between the period of October
through November 1988, the questionnaire was reviewed and commented on by several people
including Refuge Project Leader Patrick Hagan and City Councilwoman Helen Spivey, edited by
Citrus County Planner Kraig McLane, tested through actual interviews and revised several times
before being finalized. The final questionnaire (see Appendix 1) consisted of 65 questions with most
providing multiple choice answers. Although lengthy, the questionnaire was designed to address
thoroughly the issues relating to the management and protection of manatees. Assistant Project
Leader Jack Womble directed the overall survey project.

The survey team consisted of 12 volunteers from Citrus and surrounding counties, some
from as far as Gainesville, in Alachua County. The volunteer interviewers received training and
guidance at two pre-survey meetings, as well as written instructions and advice supplied by Womble
and County Planner McLane. Womble monitored the surveys on site 18 out of 20 survey days and
reviewed the completed survey data weekly.

The actual survey was conducted through personal interviews. The survey period began
November 12, 1988 and ran through March 25, 1989. During that period, most interviews were
conducted on Saturdays, with less than 10 (how many?) being taken on Sundays and weekdays.
These few additional days were scheduled to accommodate volunteer availability, to increase the
sample size and to expand the category of users. The volunteers contributed 286 man-hours during
the survey period, resulting in 298 completed questionnaires.

The 12 volunteers were divided into two groups, A & B. Group A, starting on November 12,
worked four hours every other Saturday from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm. Group B, starting on November
19, worked four hours on the Saturdays Group A was not working, covering the hours from 12:00
pm to 4:00 pm.

The interviews were conducted primarily on land at five principle public access points to
Kings Bay (Crystal Lodge Dive Shop, Knox Baithouse, Pete's Pier, Port Paradise Resort and
Plantation Inn Marina) and one associated motel (Econolodge, formerly the Crystal Lodge). Because
fishermen were often in a hurry, and frequently unwilling to be detained for an interview on land, five
survey days were spent interviewing fishermen on Kings Bay and Crystal River at three locations.
This special effort was deemed necessary to include more fairly this user category.

A single volunteer was normally assigned to each public access point in an effort to acquire
a representative sample. However, on days when high visitor use occurred, two volunteers were
used at an access point. The interviewers approached visitors, identified themselves, explained the
purpose of the survey, indicated the approximate time needed to conduct an interview (15 minutes)
and requested the visitors' volunteer participation in the program. The person to be interviewed
would be informed that he or she would receive a packet of literature in return for his or her
cooperation.

Individuals to be interviewed were selected on the basis of rotating criteria Volunteers were
told to alternate, whenever possible, between male and female, young and old, and type of activity
the person was involved in. Individuals were not approached when the survey would cause undue
interference with their immediate activity (i.e. launching and loading boats, buying supplies, etc.).
Generally interviews were limited to one person per group. Emphasis was placed on completing the
entire questionnaire.

The project was funded by Save the Manatee Club. Graduate student Cheryl Buckingham
under the guidance of the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences IFAS of the University of
Florida and through the University of Florida Foundation known as SHARE, was contracted to










analyze the public use information and produce this report. Dr. Walter Milon, John Gold and Roger
Clemons of the University of Florida's Department of Resource Economics, also part of IFAS,
donated the time and computer skills necessary to analyze the data Software by Statistical Analysis
Systems (SAS), SAS Institute, Cary, NC was used to compile the information and Harvard Graphics,
Version 2.00, Software Publications Corportion was used to generate the histograms.



RESULTS

The results of the survey fall into four categories: Demographics, knowledge of rules and
regulations, knowledge of manatees and opinions.


I. Demoaraohics:

1.1-4. Three-quarters (75.8%) of the people interviewed were between the ages of 19 and 45 with
an additional 12.2% over the age of 56. In general, there were more people with higher incomes;
more than one-quarter had incomes greater than $40,000 per year. Nearly 10% declined to answer
this question. Despite the rotating criteria, males outnumbered females two to one (66.6% to 33.4%)
and 99% of respondents were white.

1.5. Over three-quarters of respondents had experienced some schooling beyond high school and
nearly half (43.2%) had completed college or graduate school.

1.6. Most of the people questioned were from the southeastern United States (85.1%) with just over
half (55.3%) from the state of Florida The state of Georgia provided a significant 11.3% with all
other states providing 5% or less. There were slightly more people from the midwest (7.9%) than
from the northeast (6.1%) and very few (0.7%) from the west. There were also representatives from
Canada and five foreign countries (all European) who comprised 0.4%.

1.7. Of the Florida residents, nearly a third were from Citrus County (32.1%). Pinellas, Hillsborough
and Alachua were well represented with 9.6%, 8.3% and 7.7% respectively. All other counties had
5% or less.

1.8-9. People were asked what the primary and secondary purposes for their visit were and were
given a list to choose from. Over half of the people interviewed had come to the area primarily to
dive or snorkel (56.7%) while 31.9% considered those activities secondary. Diving was the most
popular activity overall. It was chosen by 47% as the primary reason for their visit and by 11.5% as
their secondary purpose. Wildlife observation (manatee, etc.) was the next most popular category
with 15.4% listing it as their primary purpose and 35.4% listing it as a secondary activity. Like
wildlife observation, snorkeling was more likely to be a secondary purpose (20.4%) than a primary
purpose (9.7%). Because so few commercial fishermen and photographers were interviewed, their
categories have been combined with the 'sport fishermen' and 'other" categories.

1.10-12. Of the divers interviewed, 83.5% said they were certified divers. Nearly half (41.7%)
reported that they had been diving less than two years. The rest were fairly evenly divided over the
other categories. Nearly two-thirds (71.7%) of the divers interviewed reported that they typically
spend over 6 days each year diving. Over half (52.1%) spent more than 10.

1.13-15. Over three-quarters (78.5%) of the snorkelers said they had received training in snorkeling.
Half (46.9%) of them had been snorkeling five years or less but the other half (43.9%) had been









snorkeling more than 10 years. Nearly half of them (43.9%) said they usually spent 10 days or more
snorkeling each year. A nearly equal number spend between 1 and 5 days a year snorkeling.

1.16. First- and second-time visitors accounted for 61.5% of all non-resident visitors. Less than 10%
said it was their third visit, 10.2% stated that this was their 6th or 7th time and 4.2% stated that they
had been here 10 times before. Only 5.2% had been to the area more than 10 times.

1.17. The average length of a visit to Crystal River tended to be short. A visit of three days or less
accounted for 85.7% of all answers.

1.18. Groups were most likely to be made up of families (32%), dive clubs and classes (31.3%) and
groups of friends (24.3%). The remaining categories were combinations of the other categories,
family and friends, friends, college chums and dive club members, or combinations of friends and
business associates.

1.19. Most parties (81.1%) contained ten or fewer people. One quarter (26.7%) of people
interviewed were in a twosome. However, 18.8% were in groups with more than 10 people.

1.20. Twice as many people rented boats as owned them (62.1% to 29%) and only a very few
(4.8%) had a guide with the boat. Two-thirds were not using a launch ramp. Those who did were
slightly more likely to use a private than a public ramp (43.5% to 37.9%).

1.21. Over three-fourths of the respondents visiting the Crystal River/Kings Bay area spent less than
$200 per person on their trip. The number was split evenly between those spending less than $50
(38.9%) and between $50 $200 (38.2%).


II. Knowledge of Rules and Regulations:

11.1-3. Although 86.2% of the people interviewed stated that they knew that the primary purpose of
the Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge is to protect the West Indian Manatee, only 74.3% knew
prior to the survey that the Refuge existed and only 44.8% knew or guessed correctly that the
Refuge was operated by the federal government. Over one-third (34.3%) admitted to not knowing
who operated the Refuge and the most common wrong answer was 'state' with 17.5%.

11.4. Nearly 90% of the visitors interviewed stated that they had been informed of the manatee
protection regulations. (See Part IV)

11.5-6. When asked their opinion on a statement that tested their knowledge of boat speeds,
participants were split. The statement that a boat producing a minimum wake is going idle speed
received 46.1% agreement and 42.4% disagreement. A nearly equal number, 10.5% and 12.2%,
strongly agreed and disagreed with the statement. Most people chose the less definite "agree' or
'disagree'. When asked how frequently they had seen violations of speed zones, 29.3% said
'often', 31.3% said 'sometimes' (for a total of 60.6% positive answers), 22.1% said 'never" and 17.3%
said "don't know'.

11.7-9. Knowledge of manatee rules was more widespread. 86.9% of the people acknowledged that
entry by any boat or person into a manatee sanctuary is prohibited and 84.1% knew that touching a
manatee which does not first approach you is considered harassment. When asked if they agreed
or disagreed with the statement that manatee sanctuaries are an important part of manatee
protection efforts, a total of 97.7% agreed with 69.4% strongly agreeing.










11.10. When responses are broken down by activity, slightly fewer sport fishermen and pleasure
boaters were aware that touching a manatee which has not approached you first is considered
harassment, although the percentage who disagreed with that statement was average. People in
these two categories were somewhat more inclined to choose 'no opinion" (16.7% for both) than
average (6.8%).

11.11. When participants are divided into residency categories; Citrus County residents were most
likely to answer positively the statement about touching manatees first (94%) but less likely to
strongly agree with it (32%).

11.12. Over one third of all respondents (37.2%) reported having seen incidents of harassment;
nearly half (49.1%) never had. The remaining 13.8% didn't know. Of the 107 people who had, 30%
of them said 'often" and 70% said 'sometimes'.

11.13. When asked to describe what people were doing to the manatees, most of the 130 incidents
described fit the legal description of harassment. The most commonly reported incident was
'chasing', which constituted 37.6% of the harassment cases sighted. Next most commonly reported
was 'crowding' (20.8% of the incidents) which was usually described as a large number of people
surrounding a single manatee. "Sanctuary violations' by people and boats (10.8%) was next,
followed closely by 'speeding" (10.0%), 'riding' (8.5%), 'grabbing' (7.7%) and 25 other comments
ranging from obvious violations such as 'feeding' and 'separating a mother and calP to the few (2%)
ambiguous and dubious descriptions such as "swimming too close" and 'large groups leaping in' or
'playing with them'.

11.14. When responses were broken down by activity, commercial fishermen, snorkelers, and people
in the 'other" category had a higher percentage of people who had 'often" seen harassment
incidents. Since sample sizes were small, however, only the snorkeler category can be considered
reliable. Snorkelers were also most likely to have never seen an harassment incident (57.1%
compared to the average 49%).

11.15. Citrus County residents were much more likely to have seen manatees harassed; in fact, over
half reported that they had. Nearly a quarter (24.5%) of them reported having seen such incidents
'often' compared to only 10.2% of the Florida residents and 6.8% of out-of-state residents. The rate
of uncertainty was twice as high for out-of-state residents as it was for either county of state
residents.



III. Knowledge of manatees:

111.1-3. To test common knowledge about manatees, several statements were presented and the
person was asked to strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree or have no opinion. To the
statement that the West Indian manatee is an endangered marine mammal, a total of 95.6% of the
people surveyed answered positively; in fact 59.9% strongly agreed. They were less sure whether
manatees are attracted to the warm water springs in Kings Bay throughout.the year. Respondents
avoided the "strongly agree" and 'strongly disagree" categories and split 30.7% to 32.8% between
'agree" and 'disagree'. When asked to respond to the statement that manatees feed only on plants,
89.3% answered either "agree' or 'strongly agree'.


IV. Opinions:










IV.1. The majority of people, a total of 64.9%, felt that the speed zones on Kings Bay are
adequately signed, with 17.6% of them feeling strongly that this was so. Nearly a fifth (19%),
however, disagreed that signing was adequate and 5.1% strongly disagreed.

IV.2. When responses were broken down by the primary activity, sport fishermen, commercial
fishermen, wildlife observers and people in the '9oher* category showed a somewhat greater than
average tendency to feel signing was inadequate (27.8%, 25%, 26.1% and 26%), although the
majority still felt it was adequate. Divers and snorkelers were above average in their approval of the
signing (68.6% and 75.9%). Snorkelers were most approving; 27.6% strongly agreed and 48.3%
agreed that signing was adequate.

IV.3. When answers were broken down by residency, Citrus County residents were the most
dissatisfied with speed zone signing, with 24% disagreeing and 8% strongly disagreeing, although
58% still felt that the signing was adequate. Local residents were most likely to offer an opinion on
the matter, only 10% did not, below the overall average of 16.2%. Out-of-state residents were twice
as likely (19.1%) than county residents not to offer an opinion.

IV.4. When asked their opinion on whether the $50 fine for violating manatee laws should be
increased, a total of 80.5% of all respondents agreed and 53.2% felt strongly that it should be. A
total of 12.8% disagreed and 6.8% had no opinion.

IV.5. When responses were broken down by activity, it appears that although 75% of sport
fishermen and 72.2% of the pleasure boaters supported a fine increase, they were somewhat less
likely than other use categories to strongly support it A smaller percentage, 36.1% of sport
fishermen and 38.9% of pleasure boaters, felt strongly that an increase was necessary, below the
53% average. Divers and wildlife observers, on the other hand, were slightly above average in
supporting such a measure, with 59.2% of divers and 56.5% of wildlife observers strongly agreeing.
Snorkelers and pleasure boaters had higher rates of uncertainty than average, at 10.3% and 11.1%
respectively.

IV.6. When the results were divided into county, state and out-of-state residents, all groups showed
a large majority of supporters for a fine increase. Florida residents were slightly less likely to
support it (75.5% compared to 84% for county residents and 83.2% for out-of-state) and slightly
more inclined to oppose it (16.36% compared to the county residents' 12% and out-of-state
residents' 8%).

IV.7-12. Several activities currently allowed in Kings Bay were listed in the survey and respondents
were asked whether they felt that these activities disturbed manatees. To the question about night
diving, answers were evenly split between "yes" (36.3%), 'no" (31.2%), and "don't know' (32.5%) with
a very slight edge on "yes'. To using a flash with an underwater camera, over half (56.3%) said
"yes' while 19.7% said "no'. The use of SCUBA equipment in general split evenly between "yes" and
'no' (42.4% and 43.4%), while swimming or diving in large groups brought a 69.8% response in
favor of "yes' to 19.9% 'no'. Approaching within 50 feet of a manatee with a motorboat was
perceived as a disturbance by 79.3% of the respondents, and allowing human access to manatees
in all daylight hours had a mixed response, with 35% saying "yes', 42.2% saying 'no', and 22.8%
saying 'don't know'.

IV.13-14. Most people (81.2%) felt they would support a user fee if they knew the funds would go
towards saving the manatee and other wildlife species. When results were broken down by activity,
fishermen and pleasure boaters were slightly less supportive (71.8% and 66.7%); divers slightly more
(86.8%).











IV.15. Citrus County residents were more inclined to oppose a user fee than out-of-state residents
(14% to 4.4%); however, the majority were still in support. In fact, the percentage of county
residents favoring such a plan was consistent with those of state and out-of-state residents (78%,
77.8% and 85.2%). Out-of-state residents showed the most support for the fee. County residents
were more inclined to have an opinion on the matter than average.

IV.16-20. When participants were asked how they would allocate funds to protect the manatee,
public education, law enforcement and research were considered either 'very important' or
'important" by over 95% of the respondents. Public education was considered "very important' by
69.8%, law enforcement by 63.4%, and research by 60.3%. Printed regulations and improved
signing were either "very important or 'important' to 90.6% and 89.3% of the respondents,
respectively. An overwhelming 98% felt that based on the need for current restrictions
(development, weed control, public use, etc.) the manatee is worth saving and protecting.

IV.22. When given the opportunity to choose three methods they would favor to prevent
harassment of manatees, around half of the respondents centered on three choices. The most
popular choice was the suggestion to expand the size of the manatee sanctuaries (55%) Very close
behind it were the suggestions to extend the area protected by the idle speed zones and to
increase the number of law enforcement officers in the area (49.2% and 47.8% respectively).
Restricting the number of people allowed in the manatee area and extending the dates during which
speed zones are in effect also ranked high with 33.1% and 28.8% of people interviewed choosing
them. Fewer people gave top priority to the ideas of extending the length of time the sanctuaries
are in effect (19.7%) or allowing people in the manatee areas for only a certain number of hours
each day (18.1%). The suggestion to close the spring area to people when manatees are present
was favored by 10.4% of respondents. A small number (3.3%) stated that no change was needed,
manatees being adequately protected.

IV.23-4. Overall, 89.4% of all persons interviewed stated that they were informed of manatee
protection regulations. 10.6% stated they had not. When responses were broken down by the
location of the interview, two locations had slightly higher percentages of uninformed persons, the
Econolodge Motel and Port Paradise (with 16.07% and 13.95%). Three locations, Plantation Inn,
Knox Bait House and Pete's Pier, had lower proportions of uninformed people than average (8.47%,
8.51% and 4.17%). All of the people interviewed on the water said they had been informed.

IV.25. When responses were broken down by the activity, it appears that commercial fishermen,
snorkelers and wildlife observers were somewhat less likely to have been informed than sport
fishermen, divers or pleasure boaters. For commercial fishermen, however, only three were
interviewed and one stated he had not been informed, yielding a 33.3% rate. With a sample this
small, this number must be severely questioned. Snorkelers had a 20.7% uninformed rate, and
wildlife observers a 15.6% rate. Divers were slightly below the average of 10.5% with a 9.4% rate
but this difference is too small to draw conclusions from.

IV.26. When answers were divided by residency, Citrus County residents were most likely to have
been informed (95.9%), and out-of-state residents least (86.2%) with state residents in the middle, at
almost exactly average (89.8%).

IV.27. Respondents who were informed of manatee protection regulations were asked to list the
ways they were informed. They were allowed to give any number of answers they wished, but
usually did not list more than four. (For this reason, percentages add up to more than 100%). The
answers broke out into 7 distinct categories. They were (in order of popularity): dive shop
management with 38.8%, word-of-mouth with 33.8%, newspaper or magazines with 25.48%, Refuge









or Save The Manatee Club leaflets with 22.4%, radio or TV with 21.3% and signs with 19.8%. Less
than 2% mentioned writing the Refuge or the Chamber of Commerce prior to arrival or offered other
answers.

IV.28. When answers were divided by activity, five out of six categories chose dive shops as one of
their top three most commonly listed contact points for information. Five of the six listed word-of-
mouth and four of the six listed leaflets. Fishermen listed newspapers/magazines (54%), word-of-
mouth (37%) and radio/TV (28/5). Divers listed dive shops (50%), word-of-mouth (37%), with leaflets
and radio/TV nearly tied (23% and 22%). Snorkelers most often listed dive shops (47%), then
leaflets and signs (34% each), and word-of-mouth and radio/TV (30% each). Wildlife observers were
most commonly informed by dive shops as well (42%) with word-of-mouth, leaflets and
newspapers/magazines tied at 26% each. Boaters had relied on word-of-mouth (43%) with radio/TV
and newspapers/magazines tied at 25%. People in the other category got most of their information
from newspapers/magazines (29%), dive shops (25%) and-leaflets (20%).

IV.29. When broken down by residency, Citrus County residents were slightly less likely, and
Florida residents slightly more likely, to have been informed by word-of-mouth, but the difference is
small. The same is true of those informed by leaflet. Out-of-state residents, however, were much
more likely to have been informed by dive shop management (54.6%) than County residents
(19.15%). (Many wrote in the margins that their local dive shop, the one responsible for their trip,
thoroughly informed them of the regulations.) A slightly higher percentage of Florida residents
gained their information from radio or TV, and a slightly higher percentage of Citrus County
residents were informed by newspaper or magazine and by signs, but the differences are small.

IV.30. When respondents were asked how they felt they should have been informed, the order of
popularity was somewhat different: radio or TV was the first choice with 31.1%, dive shop
management was a close second with 30.1%, newspapers or magazines had 23.1%, signs had
19.4%, leaflets 16.4% and word-of-mouth came last with 11.71%.

IV.31. When responses were broken down by activity, the three most common choices made by
fishermen was radio/TV (40%), newspapers/magazines (37%) and signs (20%). Divers chose dive
shops (37%), radio/TV (28%), and newspapers/magazines and signs (20% each). Snorkelers listed
signs first (34%), followed by radio/TV (27%), with leaflets and dive shops ties at 24% each. Wildlife
observers chose dive shops (41%), radio/TV (30%) and newspapers/magazines as their top three
choices. Boaters chose radio/TV (38%) and newspapers/magazines (16%). Word-of-mouth, dive
shops and signs were all tied at a low 11%. People in the "other" category selected dive shops
(32%) radio/TV (28%) and newspapers/magazines (20%).

IV.32. Many county residents (40% and 38%) chose newspapers or magazines and radio or TV as
the most appropriate disseminators of information on manatee protection rules and regulations.
Word-of-mouth and dive shops tied at 18% each and leaflets and signs tied with 14%. State
residents also favored radio or TV and newspapers and magazines (33.6% and 25.5%) with dive
shops next with 24.5%, signs with 22.8%, leaflets with 17.3% and word-of-mouth last with 10.0%.
Out-of-state residents felt they wanted to be informed by dive shops (40.3%) first and radio or TV
second (26.6%). Signs and leaflets were next in importance with 18.7% and 17.3%, respectively.
Out-of-state residents chose newspapers or magazines and word-of-mouth less often with 15.11%
and 10.79% of respondents mentioning them.

IV.33-4. When asked questions concerning development within Kings Bay and along the Crystal
River, 69.7% of respondents favored strong regulations designed to prohibit development of
shoreline (13.3% were opposed). Citrus County residents were slightly less likely to favor such
regulations (56%) and more likely (30%) to oppose them. Florida residents were most in favor, with










75.5%, and out-of-state residents close to the overall average at 70.1%. Out-of-state residents were
more likely to offer no opinion (21.6%) than county or state residents (14% and 12.7% respectively).

IV.35-6. Most respondents (86.7%) favored restricted development to protect the environment.
Only 5.4% opposed it. Again, Citrus County residents were slightly less in favor of restrictions (80%)
and more likely to oppose them (12%). State residents had the highest rate of support, with 89.9%
in favor, and out-of-state residents, again, showed a slightly higher tendency to offer no opinion.

IV.37-8. The consistent overall majority (86.4%) favored government procurement of wetlands and
other areas of environmental importance while 5.1% opposed it Once again, county residents were
slightly less inclined to support this protection measure (78%) and slightly more like to oppose it
(12%) but in this case, they were slightly more likely to answer "no opinion" (10%). State residents
showed the most support with 89.1% in favor and only 2.73% opposed.

IV.39. Only 16% of respondents had ever used an inland waterway connecting the Crystal and
Homosassa Rivers, 76.3% said they had not.



DISCUSSION

Without interviewing all the visitors to Kings Bay, no survey is complete. By choosing a
sample, it is hoped that an abstract, simplified view can be seen. Every sampling project is limited
by funding, time and accessibility. This sample was limited by funding, which meant relying on
volunteers. It was limited by time in that the volunteers were only available for certain hours, and it
was limited by accessibility in that people can enter Kings Bay from an infinite number of locations,
at all hours of the day and night. By using the methods listed earlier, members of the sample were
chosen with a minimum of bias. However, because of its limitations, this survey cannot be said to
be a representative sample. Some groups, such as commercial fishermen and perhaps sport
fishermen, are probably underrepresented. The results should be viewed with these limitations in
mind. This is not to say that the results are inaccurate. The survey instrument accurately recorded
the information on and the opinions of nearly 300 people, the most extensive survey ever taken of
Kings Bay's visiting public. It is a valid tool with which to discern the nature of the group which
must be as well understood as the manatee if any management plan concerning the two of them is
going to succeed.


I. Demographics:

1.1-7. The profile of visitors to Kings Bay who answered the survey appeared to be one of young to
middle age adults, who had a fair amount of money to spend on recreation. They were more likely
to be male than female and almost without exception white. Most had received education beyond
high school and most had some college. They were most often from Florida or one of the other
southeastern states but they could be from as far away as New England or overseas. One in three
was a local resident.

1.10-15. Most visitors mentioned diving, snorkeling and looking for manatees or other wildlife when
they were asked why they came. Divers and snorkelers had usually been trained in their sport and
many were enthusiasts, spending 10 or more days a year at it. An equal number could be
described as casual snorkelers or divers spending less than 5 days a year at it. This may have
been their only trip of that sort for the year. Because there was no category for 'less than one year"
under the question 'How many years have you been diving', it is difficult to evaluate how many









novice divers there were. Some of those who came to Kings Bay with their dive class to take their
final checkout dives for their certification occasionally had the information written in the margin. They
are the source of the '< 1 yr" category on the graph. This number is certainly an
underrepresentation of the number of new divers. Many may have used the '1-2 year' category. It
is certainly safe to say that over a third of the divers questioned in Kings Bay had been diving two
years or less. Over half had been diving for three or more years with the more experienced divers
evenly split over the remaining categories.

1.16-19. For most, it was their first or second trip the area and they planned to spend no more
than three days here. Over half were here with members of their family or with friends. Another third
were with a dive club or class. Most of the people interviewed were in groups of 5 or less; one
quarter were in a twosome. Many, however, were in larger groups (13 separate people said they -
were in groups of 15). Since only one person from each group was interviewed, larger groups are
probably underrepresented. If every fifth person had been interviewed, for example, three of the
people in each party of 15 would have been talked to, instead of one.

1.20-22. Over half the respondents rented a boat and nearly one third were using their own. Two
thirds were not using a boat ramp. The reason for this probably lies in the fact that rental boats
and the boats owned by people who live on the bay, are already in the water. The Refuge is
concerned with whether the average visitor will see the information signs that are located at several
area boat ramps. From this information, it appears their concern is real. Signs placed at boat
ramps will not be seen except by the one third who are bringing a boat in to launch. To reach the
majority, signs must be placed in view of the docks. People stated that they used both public and
private docks, which illustrates that both areas should have manatee information available.

1.23. Most of the people visiting the area seemed to be interested in either a one day trip for under
$50 or a three day trip for under $200. A few people vacationed in Crystal River for several months
of the year.



II. Knowledge of Rules and Reculations:

11.1-3. The Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge is concerned that it is not visible enough to the
public. To test this, three questions about the Refuge were asked. The answers are revealing.
Because respondents were advised before the survey began that they were assisting the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge, there was an opportunity for them
to pretend to know more than they did. Evidence for this lies in the fact that while three-quarters
said that, prior to the survey they were aware of the existence of the Refuge, nearly 90%, an
increase of 15%, said they knew that its primary purpose is to protect the manatee. Despite the fact
that respondents had just been asked, and most had stated that they knew of the Refuge, only
around one half correctly answered that the Refuge is operated by the federal government, despite
the word 'National' in its name. This seems to reveal some unfamiliarity with the name.

11.4-6. Nearly 90% of all visitors said they had been informed of manatee protection regulations
which should have included sanctuary rules, rules for diving with manatees and speed zone
information. However, there seemed to be a great amount of confusion over the definition of idle
speed. Half the people who answered the question agreed that a boat that is producing minimum
wake is going idle speed. (Note: The statement is false: no wake or minimum wake defines 'slow'
speed. Idle speed is defined as minimum speed that will maintain the steerageway of a motorboat.)
Since this is the definition of "slow* speed, fully half of these people were overestimating by a full
category, the speed they were allowed to go in the most protected manatee areas. This high










degree of ignorance can have serious consequences for the manatee and points to a need for
public education of boaters. When coupled with the fact that well over half of these same people
responded that they had seen violations of speed zones, and nearly one-third had seen them often,
it seems possible that violations are more common and serious than this survey may make it
appear.

11.7-11. Knowledge of manatee rules and regulations was more widespread. An impressive 97.7%
felt that manatee sanctuaries are important for protecting the manatee. Keeping this in mind and
the fact that 89.2% of the respondents stated that they had been informed of manatee regulations,
86.9% of them knew that entry into a manatee sanctuary was prohibited and 84.1% knew not to
touch a manatee which does not first approach you. The 2-5% difference can probably be
accounted for by the relative informality of the public information system and by human nature.
Interestingly, 6.4% actively disagreed with both statements and another small percentage strongly
disagreed. Of the 15% or so that were unsure or in disagreement with two very basic manatee
regulations, they were twice as likely to be from out-of-state as from Florida, and only one was from
Citrus County. Nearly all were divers.

11.12-15. More than a third of the people interviewed had seen incidents of harassment.
Considering that most people had been in the area only once or twice before and that visits were
usually under three days long, that seems to be a fairly high number of illegal incidents to have
witnessed. As might be expected, Citrus County residents were more likely to have seen incidents
of harassment often and less. likely to have never seen one. More cases were reported by divers
but that is partly because there were more of them. A larger proportion of the snorkelers and
fishermen witnessed incidents than other groups.
Below is the list of manatee harassment incidents that respondents recorded, in their own
words as much as possible (changes or additions made for clarity are in parentheses)

1. Chasing
2. Snorkeling in the sanctuary
3. Snorkeling over manatees
4. Kids in swimming grabbing at tail of manatee
5. Chasing them swimming after them guide shows how to snorkel and get photos
6. Swimming too close; scratching the manatee backs
7. Divers grabbing manatees and tying ropes around their tails
8. People swimming and chasing manatees.
9. Divers chasing manatees.
10. Following and chasing by large groups of divers
11. Running boats too fast and violating the preserve
12. Entering sanctuaries. Too many people w/one manatee. Trying to chase manatee.
13. In the sanctuary.
14. Pinch his tail.
15. Speed limits (violated), not intentionally people touch (them), lack (of) knowledge.
16. Observing 2 or 3 boats of divers/boaters who have discovered one or two manatees and all of
them trying to get in and pet the manatee at the same time.
17. People swimming frantically after the tee's just to get a touch and. the tee's are trying to swim
away.
18. Divers riding manatee.
19. Grabbing and chasing.
20. Chasing manatees
21. Chasing them.
22. Boats not slowing down enough.
23. Interference with mating.









24. Chasing manatees.
25. Speeding in restricted areas.
26. Touching and chasing manatees.
27. Chasing manatees while swimming
28. Chasing them.
29. Large groups trying to pet manatees, chasing, people not paying close attention to sanctuary
boundaries.
30. Not flagrant just speeding which is so dangerous.
31. When law enforcement people are not around. One was 2 boats trying to herd them to
shoreline to take pictures. Other was when 2 swimmers were attempting to ride them. Vulgar
responses when trying to correct.
32. Chasing
33. Jump in water, swim up to them.
34. Divers chasing fleeing manatees.
35. Scuba divers separated nursing calf from brother by getting too close and held baby. Divers
came up underneath and mother swam away.
36. Just generally swimming and boating among them.
37. Petting, chased to pet manatees. I did it before I knew better.
38. Chasing manatee
39. 20 people on one big boat all swimming and touching one manatee
40. Chase and ride the manatee. Crowds of people mobbing the manatees.
41. Speeding in boats.
42. Chasing manatees in boats or in the water.
43. Ride them, touch them.
44. Chasing the manatee and not letting them proceed with their normal life pattern.
45. Chasing riding
46. Chasing after fleeing manatee
47. Divers. Saw a man try to carve initials in one's tail 15 years ago. Divers approaching
manatees.
48. Speeding; chasing and try to hold on to them.
49. Speed violations, chasing manatees, diving and approaching in sanctuaries
50. Stupid people chasing and molesting manatees.
51. People swimming into sanctuary area. So many people gathered around edge.
52. I have seen more harassment after 5 pm.
53. Swimming after the manatees.
54. Chasing manatees with SCUBA, holding tail of manatee swimming.
55. Going inside sanctuaries; letting large groups swim up to them and try to ride.
56. People in sanctuaries
57. 50 divers to a manatee
58. Playing with them
59. Curious people out of ignorance touch, throw things, comer manatee
60. Petting, approaching
61. Chasing the animals
62. Chasing manatees
63. Too close, too many people
64. Following manatees, not letting manatees come to you
65. People pursuing manatees
66. People trying to bait or feed
67. Swimming after manatees
68. Swimming after manatees, chasing them.
69. Speeding and chasing manatees
70. Diver scared manatees in sanctuary










71. Diver grabbed a manatee's tail
72. Boat leads of divers leaping in with them and chasing manatees, holding onto their tails
73. Speeding
74. Large groups (with dive schools) chasing and trying to restrain or ride manatees.
75. Following (manatee) into sanctuary area
76. Pursuing manatees, 'riding' manatee tails, swimming after manatees throughout area away from
their boat and diving flag.
77. Large groups of people chasing after manatees.
78. Chasing animals
79. A group of 7-9 snorkelers following a manatee. (This is too much!) (sic)
80. Boaters "jabbing: at them; violation of speed zones
81. Chasing manatee (by swimming after) (sic)
82. No shut off engines and slow down; approaching too close
83. Diving around them; speeding in boats (including dive shop management) (sic)
84. Swimming after them/using camera flashes in their faces/ crowding them.
85. Getting too close, poking and riding
86. Approaching and poking
87. Speeding swimming too close
88. Swimming up to manatees and handling them
89. Chasing manatees
90. Chase in boat
91. So many people observing them, crowded
92. Divers riding manatees
93. People chasing manatees
94. Divers riding on manatees and chasing after them
95. Too many people crowding around manatee, chasing manatees, following into sanctuaries.
96. Chasing, grabbing, now law enforcement in area
97. People swimming after the manatee and following them around in boats
98. Pursuing the manatee when the manatee is avoiding people.
99. Large groups all around manatees.
100. Large groups of people crowing a manatee
101. Diving to touch manatee without manatee coming (to diver).
102. Following with boat go after them.
103. Groups following manatees, harassing them.
104. Touching, strobe lights



ll. Knowledge of Manatees:

111.1-3. General knowledge of manatees, in some ways, was more common than specific knowledge
of the local situation. Nearly everyone knew that the manatee is an endangered marine mammal
and nearly 90% knew that they feed only on plants. However, when asked if manatees were
attracted to the springs of Kings Bay year-round, answers were mixed and few committed
themselves to a strong answer. (Note: The statement is false; the springs are relatively colder
compared to other waterways during the warm months of the year. The few animals who use the
area do so for other reasons.)



IV. Opinions:









IV.1-3. A majority of the people interviewed felt that the speed zones were adequately signed.
Local residents were more likely to see flaws in the system and were twice as likely to disagree, but
even they responded with a majority. Support was more or less consistent across activities.

IV.4-6. There was very clear support for an increase in the $50 fine for violating manatee rules and
regulations. Over 80% agreed and over half strongly agreed. County residents were slightly more
likely to favor the increase than state residents Divers and wildlife observers were more likely to
feel strongly about it.

IV.7-12. When respondents were faced with a number of activities currently allowed in Kings Bay
and asked whether they felt manatees were being disturbed by them, people appeared to rely on
their experiences and to admit it when they didn't know. A large percentage felt that an underwater
flash disturbed the animals and an even greater percentage felt that large groups swimming or
diving with the animals bothered them. The greatest majority agreed that approaching within 50' of
a manatee with a motorboat disturbed it. On the other hand, people were split over whether SCUBA
gear bothered them. From the relatively low percentage of people who said they didn't know, it
appears that most people have decided one way or the other. On two questions, reactions were
mixed. People split evenly between answering "yes'" no' and "Don't Know* and when asked if
allowing human access in all daylight hours disturbed manatees. When asked about night diving,
the reaction was much the same. It appears that in the absence of information, many people are
waiting to make a decision.

IV.13-15. Among this group of people, there was a good bit of support for a user fee, if, the funds
went to saving the manatee and other wildlife. The importance of the destination of the funds was
seen in the number of comments made in the open question at the end of the survey. There is a
fair amount of skepticism about where such money ends up. Citrus County residents were only
slightly less supportive of the fee, even though, as more frequent users, they would be likely to pay
more often. Divers were somewhat more supportive than average, especially when compared to
fishermen and pleasure boaters. Since divers made up over one third of the sample, their backing
would be important.

IV.16-21. Over 95% of the participants felt that public education, law enforcement and research
were of great importance in the protection of the manatee. Less important, but still supported by a
large majority were printed regulations and signs. Manatees were almost unanimously considered
worth saving.

IV.22. When asked to choose three methods, all of which involved some sort of restriction, the
three most popular choices were mentioned by nearly half of the people interviewed. They were:
1. To expand the size of the manatee sanctuaries,
2. To extend the area protected by the idle speed zones.
3. To increase the number of law enforcement officers in the area.

Two other suggestions were supported by around one-third of the people:

1. Restrict the number of people allowed in the manatee area
2. Extend the length of time the sanctuaries are in effect.

Of the options that limited the behavior of people directly, it is interesting to note that the idea of
limiting the number of people in the manatee area rated fairly high. It was chosen twice as often as
time-sharing (which would allow people in, the manatee areas for only a certain number of hours
each day) and three times as often as closing the spring when manatees are present.










IV.23-4. Nearly 90% stated that they had been informed of manatee rules and regulations. There
appears to be a constant 10+% who are thoroughly uninformed about manatees and manatee
protection. At first glance, it appears that there were two areas where people interviewed were more
likely to be uninformed. However, since these two areas, Econolodge and Port Paradise, are also
motels that cater to the general public, it is likely that people who had never been out on the bay,
and perhaps were not planning to go, were interviewed. These people would not have had the
opportunity to have talked to dive shop management, see signs or pick up literature. In fact, of the
people interviewed at the Crystal Lodge Dive Shop, adjacent to and used by the Econolodge
residents, only 11.76% had not been informed, a rate very close to the general average. If users
only were interviewed, it is possible that the proportion of uninformed persons would be smaller.

IV.25. Over 90% of the people involved in fishing, diving, boating and other activities had been
informed. Snorkelers had nearly twice as many uninformed people as any other category. It is
difficult to tell with this small a sample whether this difference is significant or not, but it is possible
that, unlike divers, snorkelers spend a minimum amount of time in a dive shop and at a ramp. They
are more likely to have brought a canoe or rubber boat that can be launched anywhere quickly, and
they are more likely to own their own equipment and not need to rent it locally. There desire for
more signs may mean they are not being intercepted in dive shops and need another source for
information. Of course, nearly 80% of the snorkelers were informed, so many are being reached.

IV.26. When responses were broken down by residence, out-of-state residents were the most likely
to have been missed; Florida residents were next. Almost 96% of the Citrus County residents were
informed.

IV.27. Overall, the group of people interviewed stated that they were most often informed by dive
shops, word-of-mouth, newspapers/magazines, leaflets and radio/TV. When asked how they felt they
should have been informed, they chose radio/TV and dive shops first, followed by
newspapers/magazines and signs. Leaflets and word-of-mouth were their last choices. An
important constant seems to be the role of radio/TV. Leaflets, which many groups were informed
by, were not a method of choice for many.


IV.28&31. Fishermen had received their manatee information from newspapers, word-of-mouth, and
radio/TV. They would have preferred radio/TV, newspapers and signs.
Divers gained most of their information from dive shops and word of mouth, followed by
leaflets and radio/TV. Their preferences nearly matched their experience. They chose dive shops
first, radio/TV second and newspapers/magazines and signs third. once again, radio/TV and
newspapers/magazines were favored, leaflets were not.
Snorkelers were informed by dive shops, leaflets and signs, word-of-mouth and radio/TV.
They would have preferred signs, followed by radio/TV, leaflets and dive shops. Signs appear to
rate highly with fishermen and snorkelers, as do leaflets.
Wildlife observers were informed by dive shops, too, followed by word-of-mouth, leaflets and
newspapers. They, too, would have added radio/TV to their top three along with dive shops and
newspapers.
Boaters were most often informed by word-of-mouth, followed by radio/TV and
newspapers/magazines. They would have preferred not to rely on word-of-mouth, but on radio/TV;
followed by newspapers/magazines.
People in the miscellaneous category had read newspapers/magazines, visited dive shops
and read leaflets. They would have preferred a greater role for radio/TV, too.

IV.29&32. Citrus County residents stated that they were most often informed of manatee rules and
regulations by way of newspapers/magazines, followed by word-of-mouth and leaflets. They felt they










should have been informed by newspapers/magazines and radio/TV, followed by word-of-mouth and
dive shops. They appeared to wish for more coverage by radio/TV and less in the way of leaflets.
Florida residents were mostly informed by word-of-mouth, newspapers/magazines, dive
shops and radio/TV. They felt they should have been informed by radio/TV, newspapers/magazines,
dive shops and signs. They, too, seem to wish for greater radio/TV coverage.
Over half the out-of-town residents were informed by dive shops, the highest percentage of
all, followed by word-of-mouth and leaflets. Although they still preferred to be informed by dive
shops as their primary source, their second choice was radio/TV.

To the question 'How were you informed', many people answered "Other (specify)'. Although the
percentage of these answers is very small, they reveal other sources of manatee protection
information that are not always well utilized: (Note: #3 and #5 were included in the number of
people who were informed by dive shop management It would have been interesting to know how
many people were informed by dive shops in Crystal River and how many were informed by their
own local shop.)

1. All of the above 6
2. Restaurant boat ride
3. Dive shop course
4. Research
5. Dive shop/instructor from home state 5
6. Through friends and fishing club
7. Marine patrol 3
8 School
9. Sea camp- (Biology school)
10. Homosassa Nature World
11. Florida Power
12. Yearly boat registration
13. Took Cousteau out when he was here

To question "How do you feel you should have been informed?" the list of 'other (specify)' answers
are listed below. (Once again, those listing #2, #9, and #28 were added to the dive shop
management category. Those listing #13 were added to the Newspaper/magazines category.)

1. All of the above 23
2. Dive shop course 4
3. Schools
4. Public awareness
5. Licensing
6. When registering boat 2
7. Anyway that can'get message through!
8. (Require a) signed statement
9. Through dive club in home state 2
10. At the motels
11. Own education
12. Literature to diver sent out.
13. Skin diving magazines
14. U.S. Coast Guard
15. Felt adequately informed 4
16. Research
17. Anything to do with boating
18. Information in rooms which was provided










19. Audubon Society
20. More advertisements
21. Member of Rainbow River Adv. Corn.
22. Homosassa Nature World
23. When acquiring a boat license
24. My job to find out about restrictions
25. Feels word-of-mouth was adequate.
26. Education for children
27. Boat owners should be informed.
28. Certification courses

IV.33-4. Overall, most of the people in this sample said they would favor strong regulations to
prohibit development of shoreline. Citrus County residents were twice as likely to oppose such
measures than Florida residents and out-of-state residents, but those who agreed still held a nearly
two-to-one majority. Florida residents were most supportive and those from out-of-state, while still
supportive, were more likely to be unsure.

IV.35-6. There was even stronger public support for restricted development which protects the
environment. Once again, Citrus County residents were twice as likely to oppose restrictions, but
the majority in this case was still over 6 to 1. For state residents the proportion was 16 to 1 and for
out-of-state residents, almost 30 to 1.

IV.37-8. There was also solid support for the government to procure wetlands and other
environmentally important areas. Indeed, the numbers who supported this recommendation were
nearly identical to those who favored restricting development to protect the environment. It appears
that preservation of ecosystems has become accepted and that people expect governmental
intervention.

IV.39. Most of the people had never used an inland waterway. The people sampled appear to be
users of Kings Bay and the Crystal River almost exclusively and may even be unaware of
recreational opportunities in other nearby areas.

The questionnaire offered participants an opportunity to offer comments that were not expressed in
the survey. The list is presented, as much as possible in the person's own words, as transcribed by
the volunteer interviewer, with any changes in parentheses,

1. Glad of protection effort.
2. Every visitor (should receive a) map, leaflet and underwater maps. Enforce speed law.
3. Availability for educational purpose. (suggested power squadron) (sic)
4. Respondent feels idle speed is 'not moving' like a car stopped at a light. Next step up is slow
speed.
5. Answers are theoretical and implementation is important.
6. Restrict development, educate people, rubber propellers. If manatee goes, tourism will drop all
(above means )should be used.
7. Go at it! Beautiful here and keep it this way. People should police themselves.
8. There is not enough being done to protect the manatee soon enough.
9. Don't overregulate enforce with common sense laws protection laws need to be enforced.
10. Manatee signs in more Florida waters than just major diving areas.
11. I think there is a definite need for education on the manatee it is good to know there is
someone working on it.
12. Local dive shops friendly; informative.









13. Would like to see more information on manatee rules regulations up north at dive shops
before coming south to dive.
14. Keep up good work.
15. Kitty Hawk Scuba Club says Hello!
16. Oct. 1 got ticket (on) Kings Bay didn't feel like signs were adequate. By time (you) get to sign,
could already be too late, boat is up on a plane. Give leaflet (to boater) when (he or she) pay(s)
17. I think signs at the ramps are most important, since out of owners come to Crystal River and
have no idea when they are putting their boats in of the idle speed areas. I think manatees should
allow to be seen only in morning hours. Let the poor things sleep sometime!
18. Don't think enough people know the manatee is endangered and so few of them.
19. (Major causes of manatee deaths are) by poor development practices.
20. Ban motors in area Speed zone could be year round.
21. Monies collected as fines should go for manatee preservation, not to state coffers, tickets
should be given only when intentional) not when accidental violation.
22. (Survey was) worthwhile.
23. Need to do whatever it takes to save manatee.
24. 20-hour trip involved for weekend worth it to a causal observer of manatee casual this time
because I knew little about them.
25. On November 25, people were swimming into the restricted areas, bothering the manatees, in
Kings Bay.
26. People need more information concerning harassment of manatees. Dive shop managers
should inform people renting boats of regulations concerning restricted areas.
27. Greater education on Rules and Regs. through dive shops. Worried that 'bad' divers will have
an impact on 'good" divers.
28. Education and Research very important. Law Enforcement very necessary. Education about
other animals (birds, fish, etc.) that benefit from sanctuary areas would be good.
29. Help us help the manatee!! Public education and maximum fines for abusers. Jail for multi-
abusersl!
30. Don't let haste make waste
31. User fee coming from state or national sources.
32. Speed zones inadequately enforced.
33. Environment protection of wildlife is very important to what our children and grandchildren have
a right to know.
34. Make sure (of) the manatee.
35. I am new at this. I hope I could help you a little.
36. Would like to see baskets around props"or props somehow not in the water where they can
hurt manatees.
37. In favor of government and people doing all they can to protect the manatees.
38. More schooling for people pertaining to the manatees.
39. More law enforcement and more education.
40. Stiffer fines for manatee violations. Prop guards on motors.
41. Try to expand any available manatee information to the public outside of the Citrus County
area.
42. I think there should be more knowledge on television of manatees.
43. There were people scuba diving in manatee area this morning. About 10 or 13. Divemaster
took them in. This shouldn't be allowed.
44. Education in public schools and Jacques Costeau need to do more to educate people on
manatees. Many people don't know they exist.
45. The surveyor was very pleasant.
46. Fine a million dollars for throwing trash in water.
47. Educate divers and the general public in proper procedure. Classroom and water training.










48. Would like to see Marine Science Station thrive. Needs more funding. I think Dr. Purcell is
wonderful. I bring kids from other counties to station.
49. It's nice I enjoy going out. People courteous.
50. Survey is good idea. A lot of people don't know it is not just a manatee sanctuary.
51. Law enforcement officers do not obey regulations. The Bay (Kings) should be closed to
speeding year around.
52. Good to have a survey to see how people feel. Not harassment to swim up to manatee but
should stay.
53. During manatee season, law enforcement should be extended to at least dusk. After 5:00 pm,
I've observed more violations than during regular schedules hours.
54. The public has to somehow be made more responsible.
55. Don't think they should spray hydrilla, one of the main diet of manatee.
56. I think they should watch over them more.
57. Having been born in German and a US citizen for only 24 years, he feels very good to know
that there are some people that care so much about animals.
58. Came with parents on vacations.
59. That's a good survey.
60. Good job at protecting manatee.
61. Need signs!
62. Underwater markings of manatee sanctuaries so you can see if you enter underwater, like a red
pipe along bottom.
63. People should be educated.
64. Fee should be on people who use river, I think current protection measures are sufficient.
65. Need better restrictions on boating. People (are) speeding too much.
66. Would like to see research center in Crystal River; work on breeding program also.
67. Need to make punishment much stricter for harassment jail them if you have to. He has seen
harassment in St. Johns River.
68. Any funds should be used to buy up more wetlands.
69. Manatee information should be more specifically directed toward people who dive.
70. The amount of people must somehow be limited in Kings Bay.
71. Diver harassment was most overwhelming. It's a wonder they get any rest at all and aren't
driven out.
72. Sanctuary area should be bigger. Area we had was bigger than they had (for such large
animals).
73. I'm strongly impressed by the pollution and environmental damage done and still occurring in
this area The boat traffic must be severely limited, monitored, and boat regulation violations
strongly enforced.
74. Prohibit all motorboats in area now designated idle zone!
75. Motorboats should absolutely be prohibited in the area that is now 'idle' area Remainder of
Kings Bay should become 'idle' area Canoes are safest and least disturbing.
76. Would like to see more law enforcement. It would be a shame to restrict access to manatees
totally as it is fun to see them.
77. Biggest problem is pollution of Kings Bay; obsolete septic system, city sewer pollution plus
holding pond running over. Whole area is very fragile and we need concerted efforts by local, state
and federal government.
78. With respect to information access, I just got here and no one has had time to inform me of
regs. so they may be appropriate if I'm informed before departing.
79. We are just laymen, but well covered.
80. People (are) unaware that feeding fresh water to manatees from boat can harm.
81. Information should be more readily available.
82. Good program but put money where (it is) supposed to be instead of 'city hall'.









83. I think education and law enforcement should be primary concerns for protection of the
manatee at this point.
84. I think the government should do everything within their power to insure that manatees prosper
for other generations to enjoy!
85. We (interviewer) did a good job courteous.
86. I am fishing from a sea-wall. There (is) not enough fishing accessible to those of us who don't
own boats. We need fishing bridges and public shoreline.
87. Manatees are wonderful and I have found several that love human affection.
88. Fines for harming manatees should be the same amount as for any endangered species.
89. I would support a fee if I knew it would go towards saving the manatee and other wildlife as
long as the money was not disbursed elsewhere.
90. Dive shops should inform customers how to behave around manatees.
91. Would favor increase in $50 fine for violating manatee laws if money used for supervising
manatee areas.
92 More public information (needed). People should (be) penalized more for harassing and close
area to humans peak season.
93. You are doing a good job.
94. Sorry I could not be more helpful. This is our first time here.
95. Find a way to protect the manatee and still allow people to see them. I don't think you've found
the way yet.
96. Buoys are not marked 'Manatee Sanctuary* need floating signs that say specifically what area
is. People don't realize, Divers were informed others don't know.
97. 3 biggest problems are pollution, heavy traffic and congestion. It's affecting spawning (cycles?)
of fish and all wildlife. Need stringent pollution laws. Needs areas set aside for spawning areas -
restrict everyone.
98. Close the season of bass fishing when bass are bedding.
99. There should be more regulations concerning boating in the Crystal River area Growth
management should be implemented too.
100. Most important thing to save any species is education and public awareness.
101. Should educate throughout the country.
102. Sorry I could not be more helpful.
103. Crabs seem to have disappeared within the last ten years. This may be because of water
pollution.
104. There must be strict regulations concerning boating. Education for the environment must start
with children.
105. Manatee sanctuaries need to be expanded. Manatee travel routes should be off-limits to
boaters until the manatee population starts to increase.
106. Since this is a tourist town, I think all persons, citizens or not should attend some type of
manatee harassment and have class or literature involving the value of manatees.
107. Give warnings if only slightly violating manatee laws.
108. Need decent protecting.
109. Continued hitting; greater restrictions needed.
110. Restrict boats in manatee areas.
111. We have seen a lot of boaters going over idle-speed and no patrol ticketed them.














1.1


Age Groups of Visitors to Kings Bay,
Crystal River, Florida


Frequency


Percent


Cumulative
Frequency


Cumulative
Percent


16-18
19-24
25-35
36-45
46-55
)56








Fr<
140/

120

100

80

60

40 -

20-

0
11


9
31
114
78
26
36


3.1
10.5
38.8
26.5
8.8
12.2


9
40
154
232
258
294


3-18 19-24 25-36 36-46 46-66
Years


AGE


3.1
13.6
52.4
78.9
87.8
100.0









1.2


Income Levels of Visitors to Kings Bay,
Crystal River, Florida


INCOME
($1,000's)


Frequency


Cumulative
Percent


Cumulative
Frequency


28
43
62
57
80


10.4
15.9
23.0
21.1
29.6


28
71
133
190
270


Frequency


<10
10-20
20-30
30-40
>40










100-

80-

60-

40

20

0


Percent


10.4
26.3
49.3
70.4
100.0


410 10-20 20-30 30-40 40
Thousands of Dollars







1.3


Proportion of Males to Females Inteviewed
at Kings Bay, Crystal River, Florida


Frequency
191
96


Percent
66.6
33.4


Cumulative
Frequency


191
287


Cumulative
Percent


66.6
100.0


Female


SEX
Males
Females


Male






1.4


Racial Composition of People
Interviewed at Kings Bay, Crystal River


Cumulative Cumulative
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


White 284
Hispanic 3


Frequency
300

260
250-/

200

160

100-

60- 0.0%


Black


99.0%


Hispanic Oriental


99.0
1.0


284
287


99.0
100.0


1.0% 0.0% 0.0%


Other


White






1.5







What Was the Highest Grade or Year of
School You Completed


Cumulative Cumulative
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
<8 3 1.0 3 1.0
9-11 15 5.1 18 6.1
High School 46 15.6 64 21.8
Business/Trade 21 7.1 85 28.9
Some College 82 27.9 167 56.8
Compl. College 79 26.9 246 83.7
Grad. School 48 16.3 294 100.0








Frequency
100-
27.9% 26.9%

80

60 15.6% 16.3%

40
5.1% 7.1%
20/

0 .0%
0


<8 9-11


High Business/ Some Completed Graduate
School Trade College College School









1.6


Profile of Visitors to Kings Bay

by State of Residence


STATE Frequency


12
2
1
1
156
32
3
1
10
4
1
2
6
6
2
9
7
4
13
3
1
2
4


Percent


4.3
0.7
0.4
0.4
55.3
11.3
1.1
0.4
3.5
1.4
0.4
0.7
2.1
2.1
0.7
3.2
2.5
1.4
4.6
1.1
0.4
0.7
1.4


Cumulative
Frequency


12
14
15
16
172
204
207
208
218
222
223
225
231
237
239
248
255
259
272
275
276
278
282


Cumulative
Percent


4.3
5.0
5.3
5.7
61.0
72.3
73.4
73.8
77.3
78.7
79.1
79.8
81.9
84.0
84.8
87.9
90.4
91.8
96.5
97.5
97.9
98.8
100.0









1.7



Profile of Florida Visitors to Kings Bay,

Crystal River by County of Residence






Cumulative Cumulative
COUNTY Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Alachua 12 7.7 12 7.7
Bay 1 0.6 13 8.3
Brevard 5 3.2 18 11.5
Citrus 50 82.1 68 43.6
Clay 1 0.6 69 44.2
Columbia 1 0.6 70 44.9
Dade 5 8.2 75 48.1
Duval 7 4.5 82 52.6
Hernando 4 2.6 86 55.1
Hillaborough 13 8.3 99 63.5
Indian River 1 0.6 100 64.1
Lake 1 0.6 101 64.7
Lee 2 1.3 103 66.0
Levy 2 1.3 105 67.3
Lutz 1 0.6 106 67.9
Manatee 1 0.6 107 68.6
Marion 8 5.1 115 73.7
Martin 1 0.6 116 74.4
Oklalooaa 2 1.3 118 75.6
Orange 7 4.5 125 80.1
Palm Beach 1 0.6 126 80.8
Pasco 2 1.3 128 82.1
Pinellas 15 9.6 143 91.7
Polk 1 0.6 144 92.3
Sarasota 4 2.6 148 94.9
Seminole 2 1.3 150 96.2
St. Johns 1 0.6 151 96.8
Leon 5 3.2 156 100.0







1.8




Primary Activities



Cumulative Cumulative
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Sport Fish 36 12.1 36 12.1
Comm. Fish 4 1.3 40 13.4
Diver 140 47.0 180 60.4
Snorkler 29 9.7 209 70.1
Wild. Obs. 46 15.4 255 85.6
Pleas. Boat 18 6.0 273 91.6
Photo. 2 0.7 275 92.3
Other 23 7.7 298 100.0







Frequency
160 47.0%

140 /

120

100

80

12.1%,
40o 6.0% 7.7%

20o 0.7%

0


Wildl. Boat. Photo. Other


Fish. C. Fish. Dive. Snork.





1.9


Secondary Activities


Frequency


Percent


Cumulative
Frequency


Cumulative
Percent


Sport Fish.
Comm. Fish
Diving
Snorkeling
Wildly. Obs.
Pleasure Boat
Photography
Other


Frequency
100 -
35.4%
so -


20.4%


11.5%


2.7%


Fish.


Dive. Snork. Wildl. Boat. Photo. Other


ACTIVITY


2.7
0.0
11.5
20.4
35.4
11.5
6.6
11.9


6
6
32
78
158
184
199
226


2.7
2.7
14.2
34.5
69.9
81.4
88.1
100.0


11.5%


~.9%












Are You


a Certified Diver?


DIVER Frequency


Yes
No











200


150


100


50


167
33


Percent


83.5
16.5


Cumulative
Frequency


167
200


Cumulative
Percent


83.5
100.0


1.10











How Many


Years Have You Been Diving?


YRSDIVE


Frequency


< 1 8
1-2 74
3-5 44
6-10 34
S10 37


Percent
4.1
37.6
22.3
17.3
18.8


Cumulative
Frequency


8
82
126
160
197


Cumulative
Percent


4.1
41.6
64.0
81.2
100.0


Frequency


<1 1-2 3-5 6-10 )10
Years


1. 11





1.12


How Many Days Do You Spend Diving in


a Typical


Year?


DAYSDIVE


1-5
6-10
10












120

100

80

60

40

20

0


Frequency


55
38
101


Percent


28.4
19.6
52.1


Cumulative
Frequency


55
93
194


Cumulative
Percent


28.4
47.9
100.0


6-10





1.13


Are You Trained in Snorkeling?


TRNSNORK Frequency


Yes
No








250


200-


150


100-


50-


183
50


Percent


78.5
21.5


Cumulative
Frequency


183
233


Cumulative
Percent


78.5
100.0





1.14


How Many Years Have You
Been Snorkeling?


YRSNORK


1-2
3-6
8-10
)10


120


Frequency


67
60
21
100


Percent


26.0
21.9
9.2
43.9


Cumulative
Frequency


67
107
128
228


Frequency


Cumulative
Percent


26.0
46.9
66.1
100.0


1-2 3-6 6-10 >10
Years


__





1.15









How Many Days Per Year Do You Snorkel?


DAYSNORK


Frequency


Percent


Cumulative
Frequency


Cumulative
Percent


70
46
113


30.7
19.7
49.6


70
116
228


1-6 6-10 )10
Days


30.7
60.4
100.0


1-6
6-10
> 10







140

120

100-

80
60

40

20
0







1.16


How Many Times Have You Visited
Crystal River in the Past?


Cumulative
Frequency


103
133
154
166
171
184
193
195
196
205
208
209
210
211
213
216


Cumulative
Percent


47.7
61.5
71.3
76.9
79.2
85.2
89.4
90.3
90.7
94.9
96.3
97.2
97.2
97.7
98.6
100.0


13.9%



0 1


9.7%


13.9%


it


2 3-6 6-10


Frequency


103
30
21
12
5
13
9
2
1
9
3
1
1
1
2
3


Percent


47.7
13.9
9.7
5.6
2.3
6.0
4.2
0.9
0.5
4.2
1.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.9
1.4


Frequency


47.7%


200-


160-


100-


60-


.8%4 62

Nw










How Many Days Are You Planning
in the Crystal River Area?


to Stay


DAYSSTAY


Frequency


Percent


Cumulative
Frequency


Cumulative
Percent


37.9
34.0
13.8
6.9
2.4
2.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.8
1.6


96
182
217
232
238
244
246
246
247
249
263


37.9
71.9
86.8
91.7
94.1
96.4
96.8
97.2
97.6
98.4
100.0


1 2 3 4 6 7 10
Days


1.17


1
2
3
4
6
7
10
11
13
30
S30






120

100


80-
80

40-

20-

0-




1.18


Composition of Parties


WHOPARTY
Family
Friends
Dive Club
College
Other





Fre
100


80


0-


40


20


0


Frequency
87
66
86
1
33


Cumulative
Percent Frequency


32.0
24.3
31.3
0.4
12.2


87
163
238
239
272


Frlenda Div Club/


Cumulative
Percent
32.0
66.3
87.6
97.9
100.0


quency


Family


Combo.


College





1.19


How Many People Are In Your Party?


NUMPARTY


Frequency


Percent


Cumulative
Frequency


9.5
26.7
9.8
8.8
6.8
5.1
4.1
5.4
1.7
3.4
1.4
2.4
0.3
2.0
4.4
1.4
1.0
0.3
1.7
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.3
0.3


28
107
136
162
182
197
209
225
230
240
244
251
252
258
271
275
278
279
284
287
290
292
294
295
296


Frequency
61.5%


*______


19.6%



M


10.5%
4.4% 3.0%

-7--


6-10 11-16 16-20


Cumulative
Percent


9.5
36.1
45.9
54.7
61.5
66.6
70.6
76.0
77.7
81.1
82.4
84.8
85.1
87.2
91.6
92.9
93.9
94.3
95.9
97.0
98.0
98.6
99.3
99.7
100.0


200-



160-



100


21-40




1.20


Frequency of Boat Rentals


BOAT


Rented
Borrowed
Your Own
With Guide


Frequency
169
11
79
13


Percent
82.1
4.0
29.0
4.8


Cumulative
Frequency
169
180
269
272


Cumulative
Percent


62.1
66.2
96.2
100.0


Frequency


Borrowed Your Own


200


160



100



60


0


Rented


w/Guide





1.21


Are You Using a Launching Ramp Today?


Frequency


96
166


Percent


36.4
63.6


Cumulative
Frequency


96
261


Cumulative
Percent


36.4
100.0


Frequency

63.6%


36.4~%


L


RAMP


Yes
No


200-


160-


100-


G-
0-


0-


7





1.22


If You Are Using a Ramp, Is the Ramp
Public or Private?


RAMPPUB


Frequency


Percent


Cumulative
Frequency


Cumulative
Percent


Public 4
Private 6
Don't Know 2





Frequency

so 1/1 37


Don't Know


37.9
43.6
18.6


47
101
124


37.9
81.6
100.0


Public


Private





1.23


Cost of Trip Per Person


Frequency


Percent


Cumulative
Frequency


Cumulative
Percent


< $60
$50-$200
$200-$400
S$400




Frequent
140- 38.

120-

100

80

60

40

20

0
9$S50


112
110
39
27


38.9
38.2
13.6
9.4


112
222
261
288


860-8200 $200-8400


COST


38.9
77.1
90.6
100.0


,$400






11.1


The Primary Purpose of the Refuge
Is to Protect the Manatee


Frequency


Cumulative
Percent Frequency


Cumulative
Percent


Str. Agree
Agree
Disagree
Str.' Disagree
No Opinion









Frequency
160-
140 41.1
120
100-
80-
60-
40-
20
0
Strongly
Agree


122
137
16
4
18


41.1
46.1
6.4
1.3
6.1


Agree


122
269
276
279
297


Disagree Strongly
Agree


41.1
87.2
92.6
93.9
100.0


No
Opinion





11.2


Prior to This Survey, Were You Aware of
The Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge?


Frequency
220
73
3


Percent
74.3
24.7
1.0


Cumulative
Frequency
220
293
296


Cumulative
Percent
74.3
99.0
100.0


Frequency


Yes No Not
Sure


AWARE


Yes
No
Not Sure









260

200-

160-

100

50-

0







11.3


Do You Know What Level of Government


Operates the Crystal


River Refuge?


Frequency


Percent


Cumulative
Frequency


Cumulative
Percent


City
County
State
Federal
Don't Know


City


1
9
62
133
102


0.3
3.0
17.6
44.8
34.3


County


1
10
62
196
297


0.3
3.4
20.9
66.7
100.0


State Federal Don't
Know


LEVEL





11.4


Were You Informed of
Manatee Protection Regulations?


INFORM Frequency


Yes
No


264
31


Cumulative
Percent Frequency


89.6
10.6


266
296


Cumulative
Percent


89.8
100.0


Frequency
89.2%
300


,Vw

200-

160-

100-

60-
0-


L/


10.5%


b100111(-/


/


/




11.5







A Boat That Is Producing Minimum Wake
Is Going Idle Speed

Cumulative Cumulative
MINWAKE Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Str. Agree 31 10.5 31 10.6
Agree 106 36.6 136 46.1
Disagree 89 30.2 226 76.3
Str. Disagree 36 12.2 261 88.6
No Opinion 34 11.6 295 100.0





Frequency
120 35.6% 30.2%

100 -

80

S 10.5% 12.2% 11.5%

40

20

0-


Strongly
Agree


Disagree Strongly No
Disagree Opinion


Agree





11.6


How Frequently Have You Seen
Speed Zone Violations?


VIOLATE


Often
Sometimes
Never
Don't Know






Frequency
120 29

100-

80

60

40

20

0
Often


Frequency


Cumulative
Percent Frequency


29.3
31.3
22.1
17.3


86
178
243
294


Sometimes Never


Cumulative
Percent
29.3
60.5
82.7
100.0


Don't
Know





11.7


Entry by Any Boat or Person into a
Manatee Sanctuary is Prohibited


Frequency


Percent


Cumulative
Frequency


Cumulative
Percent


Str. Agree
Agree
Disagree
Str. Disagree
No Opinion


Frequency


160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0


Strongly
Agree


Agree Disagree strongly
Disagree


ENTRY


142
116
19


48.0
38.9
6.4
1.4
6.4


142
267
276
280
296


48.0
86.8
93.2
94.6
100.0


No
Opinion





11.8


Touching a Manatee Which Does Not First


Approach You Is


Considered Harassment


Frequency


Cumulative
Percent Frequency


Cumulative
Percent


Str. Agree
Agree
Disagree
Str. Disagree
No Opinion


127
122
19
8
20


42.9
41.2
6.4
2.7
6.8


Frequency


42.9%


Strongly
Agree


6.4% 2.7% 6.8%
2.7%


Agree Disagree Strongly
Disagree


TOUCH


127
249
268
276
296


42.9
84.1
90.5
93.2
100.0


200 -


160-


100-


60-


No
Opinion






11.9


Manatee Sanctuaries Are Important
for Protecting the Manatee


SANCT Frequency


Cumulative
Percent Frequency


Cumulative
Percent


Str. Agree
Agree
Disagree
Str. Disagree
No Opinion




Frequency


250

200

160

100

s0

0


Strongly
Agree


Disagree Strongly
Disagree


69.4
28.3
1.0
0.0
1.3


206
290
293
293
297


206
84
3
0
4


Agree


69.4
97.6
98.7
98.7
100.0


No
Opinion





11.10





Touching a Manatee Which Has Not First

Approached You Is Harassment



ACTOUCH 8Agree Agree Dsagree 8olsagree No Op
Fish
Fre. 13 18 2 1 6
% 27.6 48.0 6.0 2. 16.0
Div
Frq. 70 46 13 4 6
S 61.1 32.9 9.5 2.9 3.7
Snork
Freq. 10 16 0 1 3
% 34.6 61.7 0.0 3.6 10.3
WL obs
Freq. 20 21 1 1 3
43.6 46.7 2.2 2.2 6.5

Freq. 6 a 2 0 3
% 27.8 44.4 11.1 0.0 16.7
Other
Freq. 8 16 1 1 0
% 32.0 60.0 4.0 4.0 0.0
TOTAL
Frq. 126 122 19 1 20
42.7 41.4 6.4 2.7 6.8


Percent of Each Activity
100-

80

60

40

20

0
Fish Dive Snork Wild Obe Boat Other

Agree E Disagree : No Opinion





11. 11





Touching a Manatee Which Does Not First
Approach You Is Considered Harassment


strongly
Agree


Strongly
Agree Disagree Disagree


No
Opinion


Citrus Co.
Freq. 16 31 1 0 2
% 32.0 62.0 2.0 0.0 4.0
Florida
Freq. 49 41 6 3 10
% 46.0 37.6 6.6 2.8 9.2
Out-of-State
Freq. 62 60 12 6 8
% 46.3 36.6 8.8 3.7 6.8


TOTAL
Freq.
%


127
42.9


122
41.2


19
6.4


Frequency


Citrus County Florida Out-of-State


E3 Disagree E No Opinion


- Agree





11.12


How Frequently Have You Seen Incidents
of Manatee Harassment?


HARASS Frequency


Cumulative
Percent Frequency


Cumulative
Percent


Often
Sometimes
Never
Don't Know







Frequency
160
140-/
120-_
100-/
80
60 11.1
40-
20
0
Often


32
76
142
40


11.1
26.0
49.1
13.8


Sometimes Never


32
107
249
289


11.1
37.0
86.2
100.0


Don't
Know






11.13





If You Have Seen Manatee Harassment,
What Have You Seen People Doing?



DOING Frequency Percent
Crowding 27 9.0
Chasing 49 16.4
Sanctuary Violation 14 4.7
Grabbing 10 3.3
Touching 6 2.0
Speeding 13 4.3
Riding 11 3.7






60 -
16.4%
50

40
9.0%
30

20 4.7% 4.3%

10

0
Crowding Chasing Sanct. Grabbing Touching Speeding Riding






11.14






How Frequently Have You Seen Manatee

Harassment? (by Activity)


Fish
Freq.

Dive
Freq.

Snork
Freq.

Wild Obs
Freq.

Boat
Freq.

Other
Freq.

uTTAL
Freq.


(by Aotlvity)


Perc
60

60

40

30

20

10

0
F

I


Sometimes

10
26.0

36
26.9

4
14.3

14
31.8

4
26.0

a
32.0

76
26.0


Don't Know

4
10.0

24
17.8

3
9.1

4
10.7

4
26.0

1
4.0

40
13.9


er


Often


16.0

11
8.2

6
17.0

3
6.8

1
8.3

8
24.0

32
11.1


Never

20
60.0

86
48.2

16
67.1

23
62.3

7
43.8

10
40.0

141
49.0


:ish C.Flah Dive Snork Wlldl Boat Oth


m Often E Sometimes E Never = Don't Know


I I I I III


IE


IIIII





11.15



How Frequently Have You Seen Incidents
of Manatee Harassment?


Citrus Co.
Freq.
%
Florida
Freq.
%
Out-of-State
Freq.

TOTAL
Freq.


(by Residence)


Often

12
24.6

11
10.3

9
6.8

32
11.1


Sometimes

16
30.6

26
24.3

34
26.6

76
26.0


Never

17
34.7

60
66.1

66
48.9

142
49.1


Don't Know

6
10.2

10
9.4

26
18.8

40
13.8


Frequency


Citrus County Florida Out-of-State

Often E Sometimes E Never E Don't Know


I






111.1


In Your Opinion, Is the Manatee
An Endangered Marine Mammal?


Frequency


Cumulative
Percent Frequency


Cumulative
Percent


Str. Agree
Agree
Disagree
Str. Disagree
No Opinion


Strongly
Agree


176
106
6
0
8


69.9
36.7
1.7
0.0
2.7


176
281
286
286
294


Agree Disagree Strongly
Disagree


69.9
96.6
97.3
97.3
100.0


No
Opinion





111.2





Are Manatees Attracted to the Warm Water
Springs in Kings Bay Year-Round?

Cumulative Cumulative
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Str. Agree 49 16.9 49 16.9
Agree 89 30.7 138 47.6
Disagree 96 32.8 233 80.3
Str. Disagree 19 6.6 262 86.9
No Opinion 38 13.1 290 100.0


Strongly
Agreo


Agree Disagree Strongly
isagree


No
Opinion





111.3


In Your Opinion, Do Manatees Feed
Only on Plants?


Frequency


Str. Agree
Agree
Disagree
Str. Disagree
No Opinion


137
120
2
2
27


Percent
47.6
41.7
0.7
0.7
9.4


Cumulative
Frequency


137
267
269
261
288


Cumulative
Percent


47.6
89.2
89.9
90.6
100.0


Frequency


Agree Disagree strongly
ODiagree


Strongly
Agree


No
Opinion





IV. 1


Are Speed Zones Adequately Signed?


SPEED Frequency


62
140
41
16
48


Cumulative
Percent Frequency


17.6
47.3
13.9
6.1
16.2


62
192
233
248
296


Cumulative
Percent


17.6
64.9
78.7
83.8
100.0


Frequency


Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly No
Agree Disagree Opinion






IV.2




Do You Feel The Speed Zones Are

Adequately Signed? (by Activity)


Strongly Strongly No
Agree Agree Diaagree Disagree Opinion
Fish
Freq. 8 17 3 4
% 20.0 42.6 20.0 7. 10.0
Diw
Freq. 28 66 13 4 20
20.4 48.2 9.6 2.9 19.0
Snork
Freq. 14 3 1 3
S27.6 48.3 10.3 3. 10.3
Wlld.Oba
Freq. 4 24 I 4 6
S8.7 62.2 17.4 8.7 13.0
Boat
Freq. 1 11 3 0 3
% 6.6 81.1 18.7 0.0 16.7
Other
Freq. 3 a8 3 6
% 12.0 32.0 24.0 12.0 20.0
TOTAL
Freq. 82 140 41 16 47
% 17.6 47.6 13.9 6.1 16.9


(by Aotivity)




Per
80-


60


40


20


0


centage of Each Activity


Flih Dive Snork Wild. Obs Boat Other

S Agree Disagree M No Opinion





IV.3



In Your Opinion Are the Speed Zones

Adequately Signed?




Strongly Strongly No
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Opinion
Citrus Co.
Freq. 6 23 12 4 6
% 12.0 46.0 24.0 8.0 10.0
Florida
Freq. 19 84 14 6 17
S17.3 49.1 12.7 6.46 16.46
Out-ot-Town
Freq. 27 63 16 6 26
% 19.9 46.3 11.0 3.7 19.1
TOTAL
Freq. 62 140 41 16 48
% 17.67 47.3 13.9 6.1 16.22






Frequency








40r C y F a Out-o-Se.
A18.18g 14.71ee
32.0L 18.486




Citrus County Florida Out-of-State

S Agree EM Disagree N No Opinion






IV.4


Should the $50 Fine for Violating
Manatee Laws Be Increased?


Frequency


168
81
34
4
20


SA
A
D
SD
NO








180I
160
140
120
100.
80
860
40
20
0


Percent
63.2
27.3
11.4
1.3
6.7


Cumulative
Frequency
168
239
273
277
297


Cumulative
Percent
63.2
80.6
91.9
93.3
100.0


Agree Disagree Strongly
Disagree


Strongly
AQr**


No
Opinion





IV5



Should the Fine for Violating Manatee

Laws Be Increased?




Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Opinion
Fish
Freq. 18 18 6 1 3
8 87.6 40.0 12.6 2.6 7.
Die
Freq. 82 33 13 1 9
0 68.4 23.89 .4 .72 6.5
8nork
Freq. 16 8 3 0 3
% 61.7 27.6 10.3 0.0 10.3
Wild Obs
Freq. 26 12 4 1 3
S66.6 26.1 8.7 2.2 6.5
Boat
Freq. 7 6 3 0 2
S388.9 33.3 16.7 0.0 11.1
Other
Freq. 12 6 6 1 0
% 48.0 24.0 24.0 0.4 0.0
TOTAL
Freq. 167 81 34 4 20
% 63.0 27.4 11.6 1.4 .8


Percent of Each Activity
100 -


80


60


40

20


0
Fish Dive Snork Wild Obs Boat Other

S Agree Di ee D g No Opinion


(by Activity)





IV.6


Do You Feel the $50 Fine for Violating
Manatee Laws Should Be Increased?


Strongly
Agree


Citrus Co.
Freq.

Florida
Freq.
%
Out-of-State
Freq.
%


TOTAL
Freq.
%


140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0


26
60.0

68
62.7

76
64.7


168
63.2


Strongly
Agree Disagree Disagree


17
34.0

26
22.7

39
28.6


81
27.3


6
12.0

18
16.3

10
7.3


34
11.6


Frequency


Citrus County Florida Out-of-State


s Disagree E No Opinion


No
Opinion


2
4.0

6
6.6

12
8.8


0
0.0

3
2.7

1
0.7


20
6.7


- Agree





IV.7


Do You Think Night Diving in the
Main Springs Disturbs Manatees?


Frequency


Percent


Cumulative
Frequency


Cumulative
Percent


Yes
No
Don't Know


107
92
96


36.3
31.2
32.6


Frequency


36.3%
/7


31.2%


No Don't
Know


107
199
296


36.3
67.6
100.0


120-

100-

80-
s-
60-

40-

20-


32.5%


7


/i





IV.8






Do You Think Using a Flash with an
Underwater Camera Disturbs Manatees


Frequency
166
68
ow 71


Percent
66.3
19.7
24.1


Cumulative
Frequency
166
224
296


Cumulative
Percent
66.3
76.9
100.0


24.1%
19.7% %





No Don't
Know


Yes
No
Don't Kni





IV.9





Do You Think Using SCUBA Equipment
Disturbs Manatees?

Cumulative Cumulative
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 126 42.4 126 42.4
No 128 43.4 263 86.8
Don't Know 42 14.2 296 100.0








Frequency

200-

S42.4% 43.4%
160


100
l0 14.2%

o-


0
Ys No Don't
Know





IV.10











Do You Think People Swimming or Diving
In Large Groups Disturbs Manatees?


Frequency


Percent


Cumulative
Frequency


Cumulative
Percent


Yes
No
Don't Know






Freque

260 (

200

160

100

60-

0
o._^


203
68
30


69.8
19.9
10.3


203
261
291


ncy


e No Don't
Know


69.8
89.7
100.0




IV.11







Do You Think Approaching Within 50' of a
Manatee with a Motorboat Disturbs It?


Frequency


Percent


Cumulative
Frequency


Cumulative
Percent


Yes
No
Don't Know


234
34
27


79.3
11.6
9.2


Frequency


Yes


No Don't
Know


234
268
296


79.3
90.8
100.0


300

250

200

160





IV.12






Do You Think Allowing Human Access
-in All Daylight Hours Disturbs Manatees?


Frequency


Percent


Cumulative
Frequency


Cumulative
Percent


Yes 103
No 124
Don't Know 67


Frequency


140
35.0%
120

100

80
60
40

20
0


36.0
42.2
22.8


103
227
294


36.0
77.2
100.0


22.8%









Don't
Know


42.2%




IV. 13


Would You Support a Fee If Funds Went to
Saving the Manatee and Other Wildlife?

Cumulative Cumulative
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 238 81.2 238 81.2
No 24 8.2 262 89.4
Don't Know 31 10.6 293 100.0






Frequency

300 81.2%

260-/

200
160

100 8.2% 10.6%

60-

0
Yes No Don't
Know





IV. 14


Would You Support a Fee If Funds Went
to Wildlife?


Fish
Freq.

Div
Freq

Snork
Froe%

Wild. Obs.
Freq.

Boal
Freq.

Other
Freq.

TOTAL
Freq.



28
71.8

118
88.8

24
82.8

37
80.4

12
66.7

18
75.0

237
81.2


No

7
17.9

3
2.2

3
10.3

4
8.7


16.7

4
16.7

24
8.22


Don't Know

4
10.3

16
11.0

2
6.8

6
10.9

3
16.7

2
8.0

31
10.6


Percent of Each Activity


Fish C.Fish Dive Snork Wildl Boat

S Yes E No E Don't Know


120

100

80

60

40

20


Other


--..i


I


I


I




IV. 15


Would You Support a Fee
Went Towards Saving


If the Funds
Wildlife?


Yes No Don't Know
Citrus Co.
Freq. 39 7 4
% 78.0 14.0 8.0
Florida
Freq. 84 11 13
% 77.8 10.2 12.0
Out-of-State
Freq. 116 6 14
% 86.2 4.4 10.4
TOTAL
Freq. 238 24 31
% 81.2 8.19 10.6


.0 111.0 14.4


Citrus County Florida Out-of-State
M Yes No ED Don't Know


140
120
100





IV. 16


How Important Is Public Education
To the Protection of the Manatee?


Frequency


Cumulative Cumulative
Percent Frequency Percent


Very Important
Important
Not Important
Not Sure







Frequenca
soo 69.
260

200

160

100

Go-

0


203
77
6
6


69.8
26.6
2.1
1.7


203
280
286
291


Very Important Not Not
Important Important Sure


69.8
96.2
98.3
100.0





IV. 17


How Important Is Law Enforcement
To the Protection of the Manatee?


Frequency


Percent


Cumulative
Frequency


Cumulative
Percent


Very Important
Important
Not Important
Not Sure






Frequency
260
63.'
200-

150

100



0
o.l0 ^


186
97
6
4


63.4
33.2
2.1
1.4


186
282
288
292


Very Important Not Not
Important Important Sure


63.4
96.6
98.6
100.0






IV. 18


How Important Is Manatee Research
To the Protection of the Manatee?


Frequency


Cumulative
Percent Frequency


Cumulative
Percent


Very Important
Important
Not Important
Not Sure


Frequency
60.3%
/ 7


so -


Very
Important


34.8%


Important


3.1% 1.7%


176
101
9
6


60.3
34.8
3.1
1.7


176
276
286
290


60.3
96.2
98.3
100.0


200-


160-


100-


Not
Important


Not
Sure


//





IV. 19


How Important Are Printed Regulations
To the Protection of the Manatee?-


Frequency


Cumulative
Percent Frequency


Cumulative
Percent


Very Important
Important
Not Important
Not Sure


98
163
20
7


34.0
66.6
6.9
2.4


98
261
281
288


Very Important Not Not
Important Important Sure


34.0
90.6
97.6
100.0


200


160






IV.20


How Important Is Improved Signing
To the Protection of the Manatee?


Frequency


Cumulative
Percent Frequency


Cumulative
Percent


Very Important
Important
Not Important
Not Sure


Frequency


35.5%









Very
Important


103
166
16
16


36.6
63.8
6.2
6.6


103
269
274
290


36.6
89.3
94.6
100.0


53.8'


180
160
140-
120
100-
80-/
60
40-/
20-
0


Important


Not
Important


Not
Sure


I


5.2% 5.5%





IV.21







Is the Manatee Worth Saving Despite the
Need for Current Restrictions?


Frequency


Percent


Cumulative
Frequency


Cumulative
Percent


Yes
No
No Opinion


288
1
6


98.0
0.3
1.7


288
289
294


98.0
98.3
100.0


Frequency

300 _


0.3% 1.7%


No No
Opinion


260-

200-
IS-
160-

100-

60-







IV.22






Which Methods Would You Most Favor to
Prevent Harassment of Manatees?


Frequency Percent
1. Close the spring area to people
when manatees are present. 31 10.4
2. Restrict the number of people
allowed In the manatee area. 99 33.1
3. Extend the area protected by the
Idle speed zones. 147 49.2
4. Extend the dates during which
speed zones are in effect. 88 28.8
5. Expand the size of the manatee
sanctuaries. 186 55.5
6. Extend the length of time the
sanctuaries are In effect. 59 19.7
7. Allow people In the manatee areas
for only a certain number of hours
each day. 54 18.1
8. Increase the number of law
enforcement officers in the area. 143 47.8
9. No change manatees are adequately
protected. 10 3.3
10. Other 2 0.7

Frequency
200 -
56.6%
49.2% 47.8%
160-

38.1% 288%

100
I 19.7%







1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 10





IV.23


Were You Informed of
Manatee Protection Regulations?


INFORM Frequency


Yes
No






300

200

200-

160

100

80

0-


264
31


Cumulative
Percent Frequency


89.6
10.6


266
296


Cumulative
Percent


89.8
100.0


Frequency






IV.24


Were You Informed of Manatee
Protection Regulations?


Yes No
Freq % Freq %
1. Econolodge Motel 47 83.9 9 16.1
2. Port Paradise 36 86.7 6 14.3
3. Crystal Lodge Dive Shop 46 88.2 6 11.8
4. Plantation Inn 64 91.6 6 8.6
6. Knox Bait Shop 43 91.6 4 8.6
6. Pete's Pier 23 96.8 1 4.2
7. On the Bay 12 100.0 0 0.0
TOTAL 262 89.4 31 10.6


(by where interview took place)



Percentage of People Informed of Manatee
Regulations at Location Interviewed.

120

100

80

80-

40 -

20-

0


2 3 4 5


6 7






IV.25


Were You Informed of Manatee
Protection Regulations?


Freq.


Yes No


Freq.


Fishermen 35 91.7 3 7.9
Divers 126 90.7 13 9.36
Snorklers 23 79.3 6 20.7
Wild. Observers 38 84.4 7 16.6
Boaters 16 94.1 1 5.9
Others 24 96.0 1 4.0


TOTAL


262


89.4


10.6


(by Activity)



Percentage of People Informed of Manatee
Regulations (by Activity)


Percent


100

80

60

40

20

0


Flih Dive Snork Wildl Boat Other
Informed E Not Informed






IV.26


Were You Informed
Regulations?


of Manatee Protection
(by Residency)


Yes No
Citrus Co.
Freq. 47 1
% 97.9 2.1
Florida
Freq. 97 11
% 89.8 10.2
Out-of- State
Freq. 119 19
% 86.2 13.8


TOTAL
Freq.
5


263
89.6


31
10.6


Citrus County Florida Out-of-State


1 Yea M No





IV.27

How Were You Informed of
Manatee Protection Regulations?



1. Word-of-Mouth 33.8%
2. Leaflets 22.4%
3. Dive Shop Management 38.8%
4. Radio/TV 21.3%
6. Newspapers/Magazines 26.6%
6. Signs 19.8%
7. Other 1.9%





Percentage of Respondents
40


30 -


20


10


0 Word Leaf Dve R/TV New/Mag Signs Other
Word Leaf Dive R/TV New/Mag Signs Other






IV.28



How Were You Informed of Manatee
Protection Regulations? (by Activity)

Fish Dive Snork Wildi Boat Other
Word-of-mouth 37.1 37.3 30.4 26.3 43.8 16.7
Leaflets 17.1 23.0 34.8 26.3 6.3 20.8
Dive Shops 8.6 60.8 47.8 42.1 12.6 26.0
Radio/TV 28.6 22.2 30.4 7.9 26.0 16.7
News/Magazines 64.3 17.6 17.4 26.3 26.0 29.2
Signs 34.3 17.6 34.8 16.8 18.8 4.2
Other 6.7 0.8 0.0 2.6 6.3 0.0




Percentages

50 -
5 0 ....................................................... ................ ........................ .....................................................................

40
4 0 .............. .............. ................... ............ .... ...................... .....................................






0
Word Leaf Dive R/TV News/Mag Signs Other
S Fish 03 Dive I Snork 0 WIOba 6 Boat I- Other





IV.29


How Were You Informed About Manatee
Protection Regulations? (by Residence)


Word-of-mouth
Leaflets
Dive Shops
Radio/TV
News/Mags
Signs
Other


Citrus Co.
29.8
27.7
19.2
19.2
31.9
21.3
4.3


Florida
37.1
17.6
28.9
26.8
29.9
22.7
2.1


Out-of-State
32.8
24.4
64.6
18.6
18.6
16.8
0.8


Word Leaflets Dive Shops Radio/TV News/Mag Signs Other

Citrus County E Florida E Out-of-State





IV.30



How Should You Have Been Informed
of Manatee Protection Regulations?


Word-of-mouth
Leaflets
Dive Shop Management
Radio/TV
Newspaper/Magazines
Signs
Other


Percentage


Word Leaf Dive R/TV New/Mag Sign


11.7%
16.4%
30.8%
31.1%
23.1%
19.4%
4.7%


....................................................

. ....................... : ...........................
. ........................ .........................

. ........................
....... ......


-I ....... I ......


I ............................................................... ; ..... ......
...... ................................................... -

..... ....... ............................

...... ....... ..........................
I ....... I ..........................


OTher






IV.31


How Do You Feel You Should Have Been Informed
of Manatee Protection Regulations? (by Activity)


Word-of-mouth
Leaflets
Dive Shops
Radio/TV
News/Mags
Signs
Other


Word Leaf Dive R/
S Fishermen E Dlvers
E Wild. Obs. ED Boaters


TV New/Mag Sign Other
SSnorklers
II Other


(by Activity)


Fish
12.6
12.6
7.6
40.0
37.6
20.0
0.0


Dive
13.6
16.4
37.9
28.6
20.7
20.7
4.3


Snork
6.9
24.1
24.1
27.6
13.8
34.6
6.9


WlObs
8.7
19.6
41.3
30.4
26.1
10.9
8.7


Boat
11.1
6.6
11.1
38.9
16.7
11.1
6.6


Other
8.0
16.0
32.0
28.0
20.0
16.0
4.0






IV.32






How Do You Feel You Should Have Been Informed
of Manatee Regulations? (by Residence)


Word-of-mouth
Leaflets
Dive Shops
Radio/TV
Newspapers/Magazines
Signs
Other


Citrus Co
18.0
14.0
18.0
38.0
40.0
14.0
0.0


Florida
10.0
16.4
24.6
33.6
26.6
22.7
6.6


Out-of-State
10.8
17.3
40.3
26.6
16.1
18.7
6.8


Percentage


Word LeafDive R/TV New/Mag Signs Other

S Citrus Co. E Florida M Out-of-State






IV.33







Would You Favor Strong Regulations to
Prohibit Development of Shoreline?


Fr


Favor
Oppose
No Opinion






Freque

260 (

200-

160-

100-

50-

0


equency
206
39
60


Favor


Percent
69.7
13.3
17.0


Cumulative
Frequency
206
244
294


Oppose


Cumulative
Percent
69.7
83.0
100.0


No
Opinion


incy





IV.34




Would You Favor Strong Regulations To
Prohibit Development of Shoreline?


Favor Oppose No Opinion
Citrus Co
Freq. 28 16 7
% 66.0 30.0 14.0
Florida
Freq. 83 13 14
% 76.6 11.8 12.7
Out-of-State
Freq. 94 11 29
% 70.2 8.2 21.6


TOTAL
Freq.

(by Residence)
(by Residence)


206
69.7


39
13.3


60
17.0


Citrus County Florida Out-of-State
Favor E Oppose E No Opinion






IV.35










Would You Favor Restricted Development
Which Protects the Environment?


Frequency


Percent


Cumulative
Frequency


Cumulative
Percent


Favor
Oppose
No Opinion





Freque

300

260

200

150

100

80

0
F


266
16
23


86.7
6.4
7.8


incy


ivor Oppoe No
Opinion


266
271
294


86.7
92.2
100.0





IV.36



Would You Favor Restricted Development
Which Protects the Environment?


Favor


Oppose No Opinion


Citrus Co
Freq. 40 6 4
% 80.0 12.0 8.0
Florida
Freq. 98 8 6
% 89.9 6.6 4.6
Out -of-State
Freq. 117 4 14
% 86.7 3.0 10.4


TOTAL
Freq.
%


266
86.7


16
6.4


23
7.8


Frequency


Citrus County Florida Out-of-State


M Favor M Oppose M No Opinion




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs